Robert F. Kennedy, JR. LAUNCHES A EUROPEAN BRANCH OF THE CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE ORGANIZATION TO REVEAL HOW GOVERNMENTS ARE USING FEAR TO CONTROL AND MANIPULATE THE POPULATION WITH REGARD TO VACINES

Posted on September 19, 2020 by abyssum

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

August 28, 2020, the Children’s Health Defense, led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., launched a European branch of the organization. In a press conference¹ announcing the new branch, Kennedy discussed how governments are using fear to control and manipulate the population.

Acting as quasi-government agencies, public health organizations such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization are pushing vaccines using the same fear tactics, while simultaneously removing the regulatory oversight that used to ensure vaccines are properly safety-tested.

Corruption in the political system, however, has destroyed the trust these agencies need to get people to willingly take these fast-tracked vaccines, and this despite the fact that the media keep regurgitating the prescribed propaganda. Kennedy also highlights how people like Dr. Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates are helping to promote this global vaccination agenda.

“Point a finger at that source of their fear and you can make human beings do anything you want. You can make them go to the slaughter like sheep; you can make them obey.” ~ Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

As a result of all this corruption, there’s no independent, unbiased buffer between greedy corporations and the world’s most vulnerable populations — our children. This is a global problem, Kennedy says, and the press is facilitating it by helping to create so much fear in the peoples’ minds that they will obey whatever the health agencies say, no matter how illogical the demands.

Vaccines Are Not Routinely Tested Against Placebo

Kennedy explains how he ended up spearheading the fight for vaccine safety. He runs the largest water protection group in the world, the Waterkeeper Alliance. In the early 2000s, he was involved in lawsuits over mercury discharges by coal burning power plants.

Around the same time, he learned of the presence of mercury in vaccines, and that this source was a much larger source of mercury exposure than contaminated fish was. Initially, his goal was simply to get the mercury removed from vaccines, but as he dug deeper, he realized “there were larger problems with vaccines.”

One of the biggest problems was, and still is, the fact that vaccines in the U.S. are not safety tested. “They have an exemption that is not available to any other medical product,” Kennedy says, explaining that when the vaccine program was initially launched, the goal was to make sure vaccines could be rapidly developed and deployed in response to biological attacks by foreign countries.

As a result, regulatory impediments — including safety testing vaccines against placebos, which the gold-standard in medical safety testing — were removed.

“My very narrow purpose in starting the Children Health Defense was to address this problem and to get vaccines properly safety tested, because if they’re not safety tested, nobody can tell you with any medical authority whether that vaccine is injuring more people than it’s saving,” Kennedy says.²

“As we continued on with this advocacy it became very clear that there were other problems as well. There [were] problems with the corruption in our political system.

The pharmaceutical companies had not only corrupted our politicians with huge amounts of lobbying money, they had captured the agencies that are supposed to protect Americans from public health threats: the CDC, the FDA, the HHS. They had captured the press in our country by huge influxes of advertising dollars which had neutralized the press.

They had effectively subverted American democracy by neutralizing all of those institutions that the Founding Fathers of our nation had created to stand between a greedy corporation and a vulnerable child.

The Congress had been corrupted. The regulatory agencies were captured; they had become the sock puppets for the industry they’re supposed to regulate. The press had been sidelined.

And worst of all, they had passed a law in our country in 1986 that gave pharmaceutical companies complete immunity from liability. So, there was no incentive for any of those companies to make vaccines safe …

If we win this battle in just one nation, the United States, we’re still going to lose it globally. So, we need people of good will, people who have courage, people who have a nonconformist way of thinking, who understand that we are being lied to, that the entire political structure today is saturated in pharmaceutical propaganda.”

The Power of Fear

As noted by Kennedy, totalitarian nations have always used the power of fear to make citizens comply with authoritarian rule. Without fail, it’s been shown that all you have to do to engineer compliance, no matter how horrific the ramifications, is to tell people they have something to fear, and that they will be safe if they follow your lead.

“Point a finger at that source of their fear and you can make human beings do anything you want. You can make them go to the slaughter like sheep; you can make them obey,” Kennedy says.

A famous quote by Franklin D. Roosevelt is “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” He understood that fear is ultimately what strips us of our human rights and drives a society into totalitarianism, and that the only way to circumvent such a fate is to bravely resist fear. Today, one of the biggest threats (or so we’re told) is global pandemics.

“Governments love pandemics the same way that they love wars because it gives them power; it gives them control and it gives them the capacity to impose obedience on human beings,” Kennedy notes.

Today, we also have something no previous tyrant has had, namely the technology to track, trace, control and manipulate individuals wherever they live. Most people are surrounded by electronics and wireless devices that harvest every imaginable data point about your personal life.

Digital currency will complete the net of tyranny. Once all cash economies have been abolished, “they have absolute control over us because they will be able to tax every transaction,” Kennedy says. A digital currency economy will also ensure total compliance by the masses. If you disobey, they can simply restrict or shut down your bank account.

“Many people argue that this pandemic was a plandemic, that it was planned from the outset, it’s part of a sinister scheme,” Kennedy says. “I can’t tell you the answer to that. I don’t have enough evidence.

A lot of it feels very planned to me. I don’t know, but I will tell you this, if you create these mechanisms for control, they become weapons of obedience for authoritarian regimes no matter how beneficial or innocent the people who created them. Once you create them, they will be abused; 100% guarantee that they will be abused.”

People in Authority Lie

Kennedy goes on to stress that the pushback seen around the world against mask mandates, vaccines, social distancing and lockdowns are not because there’s a willful ignorance of science, but that no real science is being presented; science is actually being withheld and suppressed.

“What we know is that we’re not being dealt with honestly,” he says. “We’re being told, ‘This is the science,’ but it’s an appeal to authority. It’s science because Tony Fauci and Bill Gates tell us it’s science.

We want to see the studies. We want to see the studies on hydroxychloroquine. We want to see the studies on whether the lockdown is killing more people than the coronavirus. We want to see real science and real risk assessment.

My father told me when I was a child, ‘People in authority lie.’ If we are going to continue to live in a democracy we need to understand that people in authority lie. People in authority will abuse every power that we relinquish to them, and right now we are giving them the power to micromanage every bit of our lives.

Twenty-four hours a day they’re going to know where we are, they’re going to know the money that we spend, they’re going to have access to our children. They’re going to have the right to compel unwanted medical interventions on us.”

Why Are We Ignoring the Nuremberg Charter?

As noted by Kennedy, this is precisely what the Nazis did to prisoners during World War II. After the war, the world was so horrified by the atrocities of the Nazi camps, including and especially the medical testing that took place, the Nuremberg Code,³ which details the ethical framework for medical experimentation, was enacted.

“We all pledged … we would never again impose unwanted medical interventions on human beings without informed consent,” Kennedy says. “Yet in two years, all of that conviction has suddenly disappeared. People are walking around in masks when the science has not been explained to them. They are doing what they’re told.

These government agencies are orchestrating obedience, and it is not democratic; it’s not the product of democracy. It’s the product of a pharmaceutical driven, biosecurity agenda that will enslave the entire human race and plunge us into a dystopian nightmare where the apocalyptical forces of ignorance and greed will be running our lives and ruining our children …

The launch of this organization, Children’s Health Defense, in Europe is a beachhead; it’s an announcement to the world that we are not going to take it. We are building institutions to fight your institutions. You have global institutions and we now have a global institution …

We are not going to let you take our democracy away. We are not going to let you take our health away. We are not going to let you take our freedoms away. We are not going to let you take our children away.”

Do Not Trust the Medical or National Security Establishment

In the Ron Paul Liberty Report above, former Congressman Dr. Ron Paul interviews⁴ Kennedy about who really killed his father and uncle, and why. In summary, the evidence suggests his father, Robert Kennedy, was assassinated by a CIA agent hired as a security guard.

Kennedy reviews some of the history of the CIA — how it was initially established as an espionage organization tasked solely with intelligence gathering, only to transform into a paramilitary agency engaged with the overthrowing of democracies around the world and other nefarious and antidemocratic activities.

He also touches on the infamous CIA program called MK Ultra, in which individuals are brainwashed to carry out orders, including murders, against their own will.

The conversation eventually turns to vaccine safety and the folly of ignoring published science showing there are significant problems — problems that the medical establishment is refuting without any actual counter-evidence.

They also discuss data suggesting the COVID-19 lockdowns may have caused more deaths than the virus itself, as well as the civil rights issues involved. “I think the data are really clear, that quarantine is going to kill far more people than COVID-19” Kennedy says.

Pandemic Responses Are Doing Far More Harm Than Good

He cites research from the 1980s that looked at the impact of unemployment on human life. This kind of research flourished in the wake of American industries increasingly being shipped overseas, causing rising unemployment.

The most famous of these studies, Kennedy says, found that for every one-point rise in unemployment there were 37,000 excess deaths, 4,000 excess imprisonments and 3,300 excess admissions into mental institutions.

“In addition to that, we have disruptions to medical supply chains and food supply,” Kennedy notes. “There are millions of people starving around the world because of the quarantines. We’ve lost, already, about 50,000 minority businesses, permanently, in [the U.S.] What is that going to do?”

Kennedy cites a report from a hospital in San Francisco that stated they saw one year’s-worth of suicides in a single month, a 1,200% increase. He also cites British research showing that while there were 30,000 excess deaths in nursing homes during a five-week period during the lockdown, only one-third of them were due to COVID-19.

In other words, the death rate from isolation was double that of the virus itself. People didn’t get the proper medical care for chronic conditions and so on. Kennedy also rightly points out that what we will see — and are already seeing — is the obliteration of the middle-class and the shift of wealth from the poor to the already ultra-rich.

Then there’s the rapidly approaching question of vaccination. Children and young adults under the age of 20 basically have a zero risk of dying from COVID-19, so are we going to force them to gamble with their future health by taking a fast-tracked and unproven vaccine in the name of protecting the elderly who are at greatest risk of dying from COVID-19? “That is a very dicey ethical question,” Kennedy says.

“This is like an apocalyptical battle; it’s really something I never thought would happen in my lifetime, where all the values of our country are being eroded,” Kennedy says, pointing out that in 1968, there was a bird flu pandemic⁵ that had a higher mortality rate than COVID-19, “and we all went to Woodstock. It was just part of life.”

Today, pandemics have become a tool of tyranny, and the “biosecurity” agenda is a globalist agenda that ultimately seeks to gain total control by stripping away human rights and the rights of countries. As noted by Kennedy, the fear level is totally out of proportion to the real threat of COVID-19, as are the government-prescribed responses.

“Point a finger at that source of their fear and you can make human beings do anything you want. You can make them go to the slaughter like sheep; you can make them obey.” ~ Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Vaccines Are Not Routinely Tested Against Placebo

As a result, regulatory impediments — including safety testing vaccines against placebos, which the gold-standard in medical safety testing — were removed.

“My very narrow purpose in starting the Children Health Defense was to address this problem and to get vaccines properly safety tested, because if they’re not safety tested, nobody can tell you with any medical authority whether that vaccine is injuring more people than it’s saving,” Kennedy says.²

“As we continued on with this advocacy it became very clear that there were other problems as well. There [were] problems with the corruption in our political system.

The pharmaceutical companies had not only corrupted our politicians with huge amounts of lobbying money, they had captured the agencies that are supposed to protect Americans from public health threats: the CDC, the FDA, the HHS. They had captured the press in our country by huge influxes of advertising dollars which had neutralized the press.

They had effectively subverted American democracy by neutralizing all of those institutions that the Founding Fathers of our nation had created to stand between a greedy corporation and a vulnerable child.

The Congress had been corrupted. The regulatory agencies were captured; they had become the sock puppets for the industry they’re supposed to regulate. The press had been sidelined.

And worst of all, they had passed a law in our country in 1986 that gave pharmaceutical companies complete immunity from liability. So, there was no incentive for any of those companies to make vaccines safe …

If we win this battle in just one nation, the United States, we’re still going to lose it globally. So, we need people of good will, people who have courage, people who have a nonconformist way of thinking, who understand that we are being lied to, that the entire political structure today is saturated in pharmaceutical propaganda.”

The Power of Fear

“Point a finger at that source of their fear and you can make human beings do anything you want. You can make them go to the slaughter like sheep; you can make them obey,” Kennedy says.

“Governments love pandemics the same way that they love wars because it gives them power; it gives them control and it gives them the capacity to impose obedience on human beings,” Kennedy notes.

“Many people argue that this pandemic was a plandemic, that it was planned from the outset, it’s part of a sinister scheme,” Kennedy says. “I can’t tell you the answer to that. I don’t have enough evidence.

A lot of it feels very planned to me. I don’t know, but I will tell you this, if you create these mechanisms for control, they become weapons of obedience for authoritarian regimes no matter how beneficial or innocent the people who created them. Once you create them, they will be abused; 100% guarantee that they will be abused.”

People in Authority Lie

“What we know is that we’re not being dealt with honestly,” he says. “We’re being told, ‘This is the science,’ but it’s an appeal to authority. It’s science because Tony Fauci and Bill Gates tell us it’s science.

We want to see the studies. We want to see the studies on hydroxychloroquine. We want to see the studies on whether the lockdown is killing more people than the coronavirus. We want to see real science and real risk assessment.

My father told me when I was a child, ‘People in authority lie.’ If we are going to continue to live in a democracy we need to understand that people in authority lie. People in authority will abuse every power that we relinquish to them, and right now we are giving them the power to micromanage every bit of our lives.

Twenty-four hours a day they’re going to know where we are, they’re going to know the money that we spend, they’re going to have access to our children. They’re going to have the right to compel unwanted medical interventions on us.”

Why Are We Ignoring the Nuremberg Charter?

“We all pledged … we would never again impose unwanted medical interventions on human beings without informed consent,” Kennedy says. “Yet in two years, all of that conviction has suddenly disappeared. People are walking around in masks when the science has not been explained to them. They are doing what they’re told.

These government agencies are orchestrating obedience, and it is not democratic; it’s not the product of democracy. It’s the product of a pharmaceutical driven, biosecurity agenda that will enslave the entire human race and plunge us into a dystopian nightmare where the apocalyptical forces of ignorance and greed will be running our lives and ruining our children …

The launch of this organization, Children’s Health Defense, in Europe is a beachhead; it’s an announcement to the world that we are not going to take it. We are building institutions to fight your institutions. You have global institutions and we now have a global institution …

We are not going to let you take our democracy away. We are not going to let you take our health away. We are not going to let you take our freedoms away. We are not going to let you take our children away.”

Do Not Trust the Medical or National Security Establishment

He also touches on the infamous CIA program called MK Ultra, in which individuals are brainwashed to carry out orders, including murders, against their own will.

Pandemic Responses Are Doing Far More Harm Than Good

“In addition to that, we have disruptions to medical supply chains and food supply,” Kennedy notes. “There are millions of people starving around the world because of the quarantines. We’ve lost, already, about 50,000 minority businesses, permanently, in [the U.S.] What is that going to do?”

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

THE UNMASKING OF U.S. Public Health Service

Posted on September 19, 2020 by abyssum

Mikovits/Heckenlively’s Three Books Outline THE COMPLETE FAILURE Of US Public Health…

Three Books – No Prisoners…

Opinion by “Deplorable” Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

Kent Heckenlively and Judy Mikovits’s newest book “The Case Against Masks – Ten Reasons Why Mask Use Should Be Limited” is a third nail in US Public Health’s coffin.

Before you read it, pick up a yellow highlighter. You are going to want to mark out the sections of text that you can quote to those that think masks are a good idea. And, there are a lot of those areas to highlight.

Democratic Party Governors, and local Public Health officials, are going to hate you.

Although the book very well questions the so-called science of mask wearing with ten very good points, together, all of it is a strong indictment of US Public Health.

Why?

Because it becomes very clear that US Public Health has NO CLUE what to do with a REAL Pandemic. They couldn’t even tell if there was one, or how big it would be. Their predictions of what was to come were ABSURD. Their whole handling of the problem was a joke.

**In the “Mask” book there are ten reasons:**

Reason #1 – Oxygen is good for Human Beings and Carbon Dioxide is Not!

Reason #2 – How Does SARS-Cov-2 Spread?

Reason #3 – How Effective is A Mask?

Reason #4 – Six Feet Apart And Wearing A Mask?

Reason #5 – What About Face Seal leakage and the Backward Jet?

Reason #6 – What is the Actual Risk of Airborne Transmission?

Reason #7 – What is a Dangerous Situation for the Vulnerable Exposed to SARS-Cov-2 to Develop COVID-19

Reason #8 – Can A mask Become A Virus Trap?

Reason #9 – The Myth of Asymptomatic Carriers

Reason #10 – Children Do NOT Need to Wear a Mask to Return to School

Americans were gulled into believing that we really did, and do, have a workable US Public Health System.

And, of course, we do not. The handling of the Covid-19 “crisis” pointed out that is anything but, very clearly and succinctly. The bottom line in US Health Care is that what we know as “US Public Health” is a complete fraud.

US Public Health, from the CDC down through the States, all the way into the 3,141 individual counties is ONLY these days a vaccination promotion and distribution network. Every bit of their daily existence, at every level, is focused on INCREASING vaccination rates at their locations.

Tens of thousands of PhD, Masters, and Bachelor level people in these agencies WASTED their time in colleges and Universities learning about science and health – for they are ONLY vaccine salespeople these days. Nothing else.

How do I know I am right?

When the so-called Covid-19 pandemic hit our shores, coming, as it were from China, what did US Public Health say? They said “But, we don’t have a vaccine…”

In the hive-mind of US Public Health Americans had to die in waves until a vaccine could be invented and tested. Sigh.

When some fool said the word “masks” tens of thousands of bureaucratic fools sat up in a stupor, and said “yeah…”

Every one of the ten reasons listed above should have resonated with “US Public Health” – but not even one of them was espoused at any level…

To me – fire all of them. They won’t be missed. Audi sales will drop. Conference venues will take a hit.

Then there were those other books Kent and Judy wrote…

Lets talk, first, about their book “Plague…”

What Kent said of his book at the time:

“I think it has such a strong hold on people because it’s a story of science gone awry…

…of immense hubris on the part of researchers, followed by a cover-up of how animal viruses from vaccines are being injected into human beings. And instead of these efforts resulting in humans with increased capacities and health, they are causing enormous suffering and disease.

In my calculation, Judy does not suffer because she is a woman. She suffers because she’s a scientist who refuses to turn away from what the science reveals. She’s fierce in her defense of the human species, when others worry only about their paychecks and the approval of their colleagues in this conspiracy of silence.

Is this just a mistake and cover-up, or is it something much worse?

I don’t have an answer, but how can they not see the change in our young population? Why are they so sick and why are they losing their ability to even sit down and read a single book?

Click on the link just below…

https://bolenreport.com/plague-the-book-that-just-keeps-on-selling/embed/#?secret=EKNYl5xkTe

Then, of course, there was their New York Times bestseller “Plague of Corruption.”

Click on the link just below…

https://bolenreport.com/plague-of-corruption-a-scientist-at-sea/embed/#?secret=1laDSeuaeN

I do not need to describe this book. It is a best seller…

I have the suspicion that Donald Trump and his administration are using the BolenReport as a resource for their plan to revise US Health Care.

Good idea – for we, here, are way ahead of the game in understanding what is really going on. Yes, we need to rip the current system apart and put something else in its place. It is obvious that we need to just fold up the US Public Health bureaucratic structure.

But, more importantly – we need to make “Big Pharma” into “Little Pharma…”

Donald knows all of this already, for he read it right here…

Stay tuned…

Opinion by “Deplorable” Consumer Advocate Tim BolenMore BolenReport Articles By Tim Bolen

PLEASE HELP US CHANGE HEALTH CARE FOR THE BETTER – SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH GROUPS AND OTHERS YOU KNOW. “FACEBOOK” IS OPENLY SHADOW-BANNING THE BOLENREPORT. PLEASE USE THE BUTTONS BELOW TO SHARE THIS ARTICLE…

BolenReport Terrifies Australian Government?March 24, 2018In “Autism – Vaccine Damage”

Judy Mikovits “Plandemic” Video Hits ONE BILLION Views Worldwide…June 19, 2020In “Autism – Vaccine Damage”

Snowflakes of San Francisco…April 27, 2017In “Autism – Vaccine Damage”Posted on September 17, 2020Author Tim BolenCategories BIG PHARMA, HEALTH FREEDOM, Judy Mikovits, Kent Heckenlively JD, MAINSTREAM MEDICINE – HEALTH CARE FAILURES, Tim Bolen, US HEALTH CARE SYSTEM CRITIQUE, VACCINE HOAX, World Politics

5 thoughts on “Mikovits/Heckenlively’s Three Books Outline THE COMPLETE FAILURE Of US Public Health…”

Jason Earl Hommelsays:September 17, 2020 at 7:55 amNothing changes in government overnight. Another good first step is to ban pharmaceutical advertising to the public. Of course, Tim, you said that already.
Robert Slovaksays:September 17, 2020 at 9:12 amGood work Tim…We are “in sync” with the obvious conclusions about the state of healthcare in most of the Western civilization. Even though Pharma will gradually collapse of its own failures (only propped up by Fake News advertising and the public’s ignorance), I am taking an active role in accelerating its demise.Regards,
Chief Science & Technology Officer
Annette Fangsays:September 17, 2020 at 10:22 amThere is a connection between vaccines and everything that’s going on in this world since they alter our immune system and with it our consciousness. The immune system is a part of our spiritual center. After all, only the immune system knows what is “us” and what is not “us”. It is the center of the “self” and part of our consciousness. Define “self” and eventually you will have to talk about the immune system. Identity issues (not knowing yourself because the immune system lost track of “who you are or what is you” — “is it you or is it not you?”) are already visible everywhere in society in the form of gender dysphoria or autism (auto=Greek self, injury to the “self”).
Field-McLeodsays:September 17, 2020 at 4:09 pmThank you for bringing this issue up. I looked for date advice with this theme for
a couple of days, I found only https://makeup-reviews.com. Now I’m fulfilled as I have reached this particular article.
I just like the way you contend and present the important points in addition to your writing style.
There is a shortage of time but yours is short and concise, I spent just a few minutes to read the article.It is essential since no one has time to see.
Raymond McWilliamssays:September 17, 2020 at 4:27 pmVery well said, the vast majority of the people have no clue
about whats really going on in this country, we are in for a
lot of trouble when all of the unknowing and illiterate people
go along with the corrupt and stupid government officials
and the murderous and corrupt big farma! there day will
come when they are all thrown into the lake of fire when the
Lord returns.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

WITH THE LAUNCHING OF THE PANDEMIC CORONAVIRUS FROM WUHAN, CHINA, THE COMMUNIST REGIME BEGAN THE “NON-VIOLENT” PHASE OF World War III. WE MUST SUPPORT THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY IN ITS EFFORTS TO WEAKEN THE STRENGTH OF RED CHINA TO GAIN POWER OVER THE United States AND THE REST OF THE WESTERN WORLD

Posted on September 18, 2020 by abyssum

← September 18th – 2020 Presidential Politics – Trump Administration Day #1338

Secretary Wilbur Ross Discusses Tech and Structural Confrontation with Beijing -WeChat and TikTok…

Posted on September 18, 2020 by sundance

When Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross appears… PAY ATTENTION. In this interview Secretary Ross outlines an announcement today [LINK HERE] about the U.S. will block Chinese owned WeChat, and additional security measures against TikTok.

COMMERCE – […] While the threats posed by WeChat and TikTok are not identical, they are similar. Each collects vast swaths of data from users, including network activity, location data, and browsing and search histories. Each is an active participant in China’s civil-military fusion and is subject to mandatory cooperation with the intelligence services of the CCP. This combination results in the use of WeChat and TikTok creating unacceptable risks to our national security. (more)

Additionally, Secretary Ross discusses sector-specific relief for the airline industry and U.S. farmers. On the farmer side we should all remember any confrontation with Beijing could lead to China pulling back from purchase agreements. China cannot feed itself and is dependent on imported food products, so the scale of any pull-back is not known.

DETAILS – In response to President Trump’s Executive Orders signed August 6, 2020, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) today announced prohibitions on transactions relating to mobile applications (apps) WeChat and TikTok to safeguard the national security of the United States.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has demonstrated the means and motives to use these apps to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and the economy of the U.S. Today’s announced prohibitions, when combined, protect users in the U.S. by eliminating access to these applications and significantly reducing their functionality.

“Today’s actions prove once again that President Trump will do everything in his power to guarantee our national security and protect Americans from the threats of the Chinese Communist Party,” said U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. “At the President’s direction, we have taken significant action to combat China’s malicious collection of American citizens’ personal data, while promoting our national values, democratic rules-based norms, and aggressive enforcement of U.S. laws and regulations.”

While the threats posed by WeChat and TikTok are not identical, they are similar. Each collects vast swaths of data from users, including network activity, location data, and browsing and search histories. Each is an active participant in China’s civil-military fusion and is subject to mandatory cooperation with the intelligence services of the CCP. This combination results in the use of WeChat and TikTok creating unacceptable risks to our national security.blob:https://abyssum.wordpress.com/7135508e-2021-4352-8b57-c52f281d8a5dREPORT THIS AD

As of September 20, 2020, the following transactions are prohibited:

Any provision of service to distribute or maintain the WeChat or TikTok mobile applications, constituent code, or application updates through an online mobile application store in the U.S.;
Any provision of services through the WeChat mobile application for the purpose of transferring funds or processing payments within the U.S.

As of September 20, 2020, for WeChat and as of November 12, 2020, for TikTok, the following transactions are prohibited:

Any provision of internet hosting services enabling the functioning or optimization of the mobile application in the U.S.;
Any provision of content delivery network services enabling the functioning or optimization of the mobile application in the U.S.;
Any provision directly contracted or arranged internet transit or peering services enabling the function or optimization of the mobile application within the U.S.;
Any utilization of the mobile application’s constituent code, functions, or services in the functioning of software or services developed and/or accessible within the U.S.

Any other prohibitive transaction relating to WeChat or TikTok may be identified at a future date. Should the U.S. Government determine that WeChat’s or TikTok’s illicit behavior is being replicated by another app somehow outside the scope of these executive orders, the President has the authority to consider whether additional orders may be appropriate to address such activities. The President has provided until November 12 for the national security concerns posed by TikTok to be resolved. If they are, the prohibitions in this order may be lifted.

The notices for these actions will be posted on the Federal Register at approximately 8:45AM EDT on Friday, September 18, 2020.

Background:

On August 6, 2020, President Trump signed Executive Orders (E.O.) 13942, Addressing the Threat Posed by TikTok, and E.O. 13943, Addressing the Threat Posed by WeChat. In the E.O.s, the President determined that the apps capture vast swaths of information from U.S. users, leaving the data vulnerable to CCP access for nefarious purposes.

Commerce, at the Direction of the President, was required to identify transactions within 45 days to protect national security and the private data of millions of people across the country. Today’s announced prohibitions fulfill the President’s direction and mitigate national security risks. (link)

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

IT WOULD BE EASIER TO GIVE CREDENCE TO THE PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO) REGARDING THE NECESSITY OF EVERYONE BEING VACCINATED AGAINST THE CORONAVIRUS IF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO) DID NOT HAVE PROMINENT EUGENICISTS/WORLD DEPOPULATIONS ADVOCATES IN POLICY MAKING POSITIONS WITH THAT ORGANIZATION

Posted on September 18, 2020 by abyssum

NEWS

HOW THE WHO SAYS PARENTS HAVE ALREADY GIVEN THEIR CONSENT TO THE VACCINE

SEPTEMBER 18, 2020 FROM ROME EDITOR

by Br. Alexis Bugnolo

From a lying cabal intent on exterminating the human race, what can you expect but plots within plots to advance their agenda by all means licit and illicit.

Their chief tactic is to alter the meaning of words while terrorizing the population. This is a MKUltra technique developed by the Nazi Party during such events as Kristalnatch, the burning of the Reichstag and Operation Canned Goods.

They have used this method during 911 to distract us from asking what really did happen. They have used this method for the Scamdemic, by declaring a Pandemic when only 114 persons had died in all the world, then by refusing to isolate the alleged virus, then by refusing to follow standard medical procedures, such as quarantining ONLY the sick and not moving the infected among populations which are susceptible (such as senior retirement or care facilities), and by employing known cures such as Hydroxychoroquine. By NOT doing these things, they have intentionally MURDERED 100s of thousands!

Now they are pushing their Vaccine when all medical science argues that herd immunity has been obtain by the entire population on earth months ago.

The goal of the Vaccine is to reorder society, shift the economy to one in which every human person is controlled, money is paperless, and your genome is the playground of psychopaths nurtured in the halls of eugenicist and Nazi supporting American elite families for more than a century.

But to make excuses for the Vaccine, they no longer center their arguments on its necessity medically speaking. Now they want you to focus on the necessity legally speaking. They want you to consent to receive it, and because they know that will be difficult they are in the process of MANUFACTURING your consent under legal pretexts.

The easiest target for these psychopaths are public schools. Because in a public school, or even a private school under the control of those psychologically or politically controlled by the Scamdemic Mafia, your children are outside of your control and in the hands of their operators.

And so they have now rolled out their PLAN TO LEGALLY ESTABLISH THEIR RIGHT TO VACCINATE YOUR CHILDREN without your consent!

That is right! WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT.

But their clever plan is this: to claim that YOU HAVE GIVEN CONSENT by other means.

What other means?

It is all explained in this World Health Organization Document, entitled, Considerations regarding Consent in the Vaccinating Children and Adolescents between 6 to 17 years old.

This document will be the key to understanding the legal rationales to put their hands on your children. I highly recommend reading it.

However from my reading I can tell you it is a deeply disturbing document. Because, since those who wrote it consider themselves to have the authority to tell you what the words it contains means, then what it in fact means is what they want it to mean at any given moment.

Indeed, the principle of implied consent process, on p. 3, implies that as soon as the Vaccine is scheduled to be given to all the children or any child of a School, it is sufficient that the School make this know in any way, even if through a channel of communication which is unverified and does not certify that each Parent receives notification! Which is basically to say, that the Principal can order your child vaccinated without his or her consent, and without your consent, while claiming you have consented because he sent out an email some day at some time in which in some part of it, even if fine print, he said the Vaccination process would begin.

In this way, the WHO has given instruction to its adepts throughout the world to claim that Parents have already given consent by the mere fact of having put their children in school, where they are assumed to consent to all the other activities of the school in which their children participate or are required to participate in the course of the school day.

This is deeply disturbing and frightening. But alas, it is not a joke, it is the imminent reality and threat under which YOUR children have been intentionally placed by the Scamdemic promoters. It is their plan, and by letting you know in advance, they will in the future have another excuse to claim you have consented to it!

+ + +

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

WHEN OUR GOVERNMENT SUPPRESSES OUR RIGHT TO WORSHIP’ ALL OF OUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ARE IN DANGER OF BEING LOST

Posted on September 18, 2020 by abyssum

SPIRITED THINKING SINCE 1888

Catholics’ right to worship ‘unjustly repressed’ by government, says San Francisco archbishop

Catholic News Service September 18, 2020 at 10:51 am

In imposing severe restrictions on indoor worship services because of COVID-19 protocols, the city of San Francisco “is turning a great many faithful away from their houses of prayer,” said San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone.

“I never expected that the most basic religious freedom, the right to worship — protected so robustly in our Constitution’s First Amendment — would be unjustly repressed by an American government,” he said in an op-ed for The Washington Post.

“But that is exactly what is happening in San Francisco. For months now, the city has limited worship services to just 12 people outdoors. Worship inside our own churches is banned,” he continued.

“The city recently announced it will now allow 50 for outdoor worship, with a goal of permitting indoor services up to a maximum of 25 people by October 1 — less than 1 per cent of the capacity of San Francisco’s St Mary’s Cathedral.”

“This is not nearly enough to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of Catholics in San Francisco,” he added.

The archbishop’s op-ed came a few days after he issued a memo to all priests of the San Francisco Archdiocese calling on each parish to gather parishioners to participate in eucharistic processions to UN Plaza next to City Hall “to witness to the city that faith matters.”

Three parishes are each organizing a procession that he said he hopes all parishes will join.

After reaching the plaza, the entire group will process together to the Cathedral of St Mary of the Assumption for the celebration of multiple outdoor Masses. Participants will be wearing masks and following “proper social distancing,” he added.

In the September 13 memo, he also asked priests to encourage all of their parishioners to go to the website FreeTheMass.com and sign a petition calling on San Francisco mayor London Breed to lift her “unfair restrictions” (over 3,500 people signed it the first week it was posted); and to display prominently at their churches a banner with the motto “We Are Essential: Free the Mass!”

In the op-ed, he said: “We Catholics are not indifferent to the very real dangers posed by COVID-19. This is one of the reasons Catholic churches have developed rigorous protocols to protect public health in our facilities.”

“We submitted our safety plans to the city in May along with other faith communities, and while indoor retailers had their plans approved and went into operation, we are still waiting to hear back,” he added.

At the same time, “the scientific evidence from other jurisdictions is clear: These safeguards are working,” he said, adding that out of 1 million Masses celebrated in the US in the past several months, there have been no documented outbreaks of COVID-19 linked to church attendance in churches that follow the protocols.

He noted that as San Francisco churches remain closed, “people can freely go to parks here, as long as they stay six feet apart. If they follow proper social distancing and wear masks, people can eat on an outdoor patio with no hard numerical limit. Indoor shopping malls are already open at 25 per cent capacity.”

“Catholics in San Francisco are increasingly noticing the simple unfairness,” he said. “As one of my parishioners asked recently, ‘Why can I spend three hours indoors shopping for shoes at Nordstrom’s but can’t go to Mass?”

San Francisco’s faithful are not alone in facing such severe restrictions, Archbishop Cordileone said.

He pointed to data from Becket, a Washington-based nonprofit religious liberty law firm, showing that “six states with a combined population of 67 million Americans single out religious worship for unfavourable treatment compared to similar secular activities: California, New Jersey, Maine, Virginia, Connecticut and Nevada.

Catholics bear no “hostility toward government” and “respect legitimate authority,” the archbishop said.

“We recognise that the government has a right to impose reasonable public health rules, just as we recognise its right to issue safety codes for our Church buildings,” he said. “But when government asserts authority over the Church’s very right to worship, it crosses a line.

“Our fundamental rights do not come from the state. As the authors of our Declaration of Independence put it, they are ‘self-evident,’ that is, they come from God,” he added.

“We want to be partners in protecting the public health, but we cannot accept profoundly harmful and unequal treatment without resisting,” Archbishop Cordileone said.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

When many people think about the virtues of our Constitution, they first mention the Bill of Rights. That makes sense. The great guarantees of the Bill of Rights—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms, just to name the first few—are critical safeguards of liberty. But as President Reagan used to remind people, the Soviet Union had a constitution too, and it even included some lofty-sounding rights. Ultimately, however, those promises were just empty words, because there was no rule of law to enforce them.

Posted on September 17, 2020 by abyssum

AG William Barr Constitution Day Speech – Transcript…

Posted on September 17, 2020 by sundance

Last night U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr delivered a speech in celebration of constitution day to an audience at Hillsdale College. Here’s the transcript:

[VIA DOJ] – I am pleased to be at this Hillsdale College celebration of Constitution Day. Sadly, many colleges these days don’t even teach the Constitution, much less celebrate it. But at Hillsdale, you recognize that the principles of the Founding are as relevant today as ever—and vital to the success of our free society. I appreciate your observance of this important day and all you do for civic education in the United States.

When many people think about the virtues of our Constitution, they first mention the Bill of Rights. That makes sense. The great guarantees of the Bill of Rights—freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms, just to name the first few—are critical safeguards of liberty. But as President Reagan used to remind people, the Soviet Union had a constitution too, and it even included some lofty-sounding rights. Ultimately, however, those promises were just empty words, because there was no rule of law to enforce them.

The rule of law is the lynchpin of American freedom. And the critical guarantee of the rule of law comes from the Constitution’s structure of separated powers. The Framers recognized that by dividing the legislative, executive, and judicial powers— each significant, but each limited—they would minimize the risk of any form of tyranny. That is the real genius of the Constitution, and it is ultimately more important to securing liberty than the Bill of Rights. After all, the Bill of Rights is a set of amendments to the original Constitution, which the Framers did not think needed an express enumeration of rights.

I want to focus today on the power that the Constitution allocates to the Executive, particularly in the area of criminal justice. The Supreme Court has correctly held that, under Article II of the Constitution, the Executive has virtually unchecked discretion to decide whether to prosecute individuals for suspected federal crimes. The only significant limitation on that discretion comes from other provisions of the Constitution. Thus, for example, a United States Attorney could not decide to prosecute only people of a particular race or religion. But aside from that limitation — which thankfully has remained a true hypothetical at the Department of Justice — the Executive has broad discretion to decide whether to bring criminal prosecutions in particular cases.

The key question, then, is how the Executive should exercise its prosecutorial discretion. Eighty years ago this spring, one of my predecessors in this job —then-Attorney General Robert Jackson — gave a famous speech to a conference of United States Attorneys in which he described the proper role and qualities of federal prosecutors. (By the way, Jackson was one of several former Attorneys General who went on become a Supreme Court Justice. But I am one of only two former Attorneys General who went on to become Attorney General again.)

Much has changed in the eight decades since Justice Jackson’s remarks. But he was a man of uncommon wisdom, and it is appropriate to consider his views in the modern era.

The criminal process is a juggernaut. That was true then and it is true today. Once the criminal process starts rolling, it is very difficult to slow it down or knock it off course. And that means federal prosecutors possess tremendous power — power that is necessary to enforce our laws and punish wrongdoing, but power that, like any power, carries inherent potential for abuse or misuse.blob:https://abyssum.wordpress.com/a9288ead-d2ca-4bdd-ad5c-d74c3f9af2fdREPORT THIS AD

Justice Jackson recognized this. As he put it, “The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America.” Prosecutors have the power to investigate people and interview their friends, and they can do so on the basis of mere suspicion of general wrongdoing. People facing federal investigations incur ruinous legal costs and often see their lives reduced to rubble before a charge is even filed. Justice Jackson was not exaggerating when he said that “While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.”

The power to, as he called it, “strike at citizens, not with mere individual strength, but with all the force of government itself” must be carefully calibrated and closely supervised. Left unchecked, it has the potential to inflict far more harm than it prevents.

1. Political Supervision

The most basic check on prosecutorial power is politics. It is counter-intuitive to say that, as we rightly strive to maintain an apolitical system of criminal justice. But political accountability—politics—is what ultimately ensures our system does its work fairly and with proper recognition of the many interests and values at stake. Government power completely divorced from politics is tyranny.

Justice Jackson understood this. As he explained, presidential appointment and senate confirmation of U.S. Attorneys and senior DOJ officials is what legitimizes their exercises of the sovereign’s power. You are “required to win an expression of confidence in your character by both the legislative and the executive branches of the government before assuming the responsibilities of a federal prosecutor.”

Yet in the decades since Justice Jackson’s remarks, it has become fashionable to argue that prosecutorial decisions are legitimate only when they are made by the lowest-level line prosecutor handling any given case. Ironically, some of those same critics see no problem in campaigning for highly political, elected District Attorneys to remake state and local prosecutorial offices in their preferred progressive image, which often involves overriding the considered judgment of career prosecutors and police officers. But aside from hypocrisy, the notion that line prosecutors should make the final decisions within the Department of Justice is completely wrong and it is antithetical to the basic values underlying our system.

The Justice Department is not a praetorian guard that watches over society impervious to the ebbs and flows of politics. It is an agency within the Executive Branch of a democratic republic — a form of government where the power of the state is ultimately reposed in the people acting through their elected president and elected representatives.

The men and women who have ultimate authority in the Justice Department are thus the ones on whom our elected officials have conferred that responsibility — by presidential appointment and senate confirmation. That blessing by the two political branches of government gives these officials democratic legitimacy that career officials simply do not possess.

The same process that produces these officials also holds them accountable. The elected President can fire senior DOJ officials at will and the elected Congress can summon them to explain their decisions to the people’s representatives and to the public. And because these officials have the imprimatur of both the President and Congress, they also have the stature to resist these political pressures when necessary. They can take the heat for what the Justice Department does or doesn’t do.

Line prosecutors, by contrast, are generally part of the permanent bureaucracy. They do not have the political legitimacy to be the public face of tough decisions and they lack the political buy-in necessary to publicly defend those decisions. Nor can the public and its representatives hold civil servants accountable in the same way as appointed officials. Indeed, the public’s only tool to hold the government accountable is an election — and the bureaucracy is neither elected nor easily replaced by those who are.

Moreover, because these officials are installed by the democratic process, they are most equipped to make the complex judgment calls concerning how we should wield our prosecutorial power. As Justice Scalia observed in perhaps his most admired judicial opinion, his dissent in Morrison v. Olson: “Almost all investigative and prosecutorial decisions—including the ultimate decision whether, after a technical violation of the law has been found, prosecution is warranted—involve the balancing of innumerable legal and practical considerations.”blob:https://abyssum.wordpress.com/a9288ead-d2ca-4bdd-ad5c-d74c3f9af2fdREPORT THIS ADblob:https://abyssum.wordpress.com/a9288ead-d2ca-4bdd-ad5c-d74c3f9af2fdREPORT THIS AD

And those considerations do need to be balanced in each and every case. As Justice Scalia also pointed out, it is nice to say “Fiat justitia, ruat coelum. Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall.” But it does not comport with reality. It would do far more harm than good to abandon all perspective and proportion in an attempt to ensure that every technical violation of criminal law by every person is tracked down, investigated, and prosecuted to the Nth degree.

Our system works best when leavened by judgment, discretion, proportionality, and consideration of alternative sanctions — all the things that supervisors provide. Cases must be supervised by someone who does not have a narrow focus, but who is broad gauged and pursuing a general agenda. And that person need not be a prosecutor, but someone who can balance the importance of vigorous prosecution with other competing values.

In short, the Attorney General, senior DOJ officials, and U.S. Attorneys are indeed political. But they are political in a good and necessary sense.

Indeed, aside from the importance of not fully decoupling law enforcement from the constraining and moderating forces of politics, devolving all authority down to the most junior officials does not even make sense as a matter of basic management. Name one successful organization where the lowest level employees’ decisions are deemed sacrosanct. There aren’t any. Letting the most junior members set the agenda might be a good philosophy for a Montessori preschool, but it’s no way to run a federal agency. Good leaders at the Justice Department—as at any organization—need to trust and support their subordinates. But that does not mean blindly deferring to whatever those subordinates want to do.

This is what Presidents, the Congress, and the public expect. When something goes wrong at the Department of Justice, the buck stops at the top. 28 U.S.C. § 509 could not be plainer: “All functions of other officers of the Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the Attorney General.”

And because I am ultimately accountable for every decision the Department makes, I have an obligation to ensure we make the correct ones. The Attorney General, the Assistant Attorneys General, and the U.S. Attorneys are not figureheads selected for their good looks and profound eloquence.

They are supervisors. Their job is to supervise. Anything less is an abdication.

Active engagement in our cases by senior officials is also essential to the rule of law. The essence of the rule of law is that whatever rule you apply in one case must be the same rule you would apply to similar cases. Treating each person equally before the law includes how the Department enforces the law.

We should not prosecute someone for wire fraud in Manhattan using a legal theory we would not equally pursue in Madison or in Montgomery, or allow prosecutors in one division to bring charges using a theory that a group of prosecutors in the division down the hall would not deploy against someone who engaged in indistinguishable conduct.

We must strive for consistency. And that is yet another reason why centralized senior leadership exists—to harmonize the disparate views of our many prosecutors into a consistent policy for the Department. As Justice Jackson explained, “we must proceed in all districts with that uniformity of policy which is necessary to the prestige of federal law.”

2. Detachment in Prosecutions

All the supervision in the world will not be enough, though, without a strong culture across the Department of fairness and commitment to even-handed justice. This is what Justice Jackson described as “the spirit of fair play and decency that should animate the federal prosecutor.” In his memorable turn of phrase, even when “the government technically loses its case, it has really won if justice has been done.”

We want our prosecutors to be aggressive and tenacious in their pursuit of justice, but we also want to ensure that justice is ultimately administered dispassionately.blob:https://abyssum.wordpress.com/a9288ead-d2ca-4bdd-ad5c-d74c3f9af2fdREPORT THIS ADblob:https://abyssum.wordpress.com/a9288ead-d2ca-4bdd-ad5c-d74c3f9af2fdREPORT THIS AD

We are all human. Like any person, a prosecutor can become overly invested in a particular goal. Prosecutors who devote months or years of their lives to investigating a particular target may become deeply invested in their case and assured of the rightness of their cause.

When a prosecution becomes “your prosecution”—particularly if the investigation is highly public, or has been acrimonious, or if you are confident early on that the target committed serious crimes—there is always a temptation to will a prosecution into existence even when the facts, the law, or the fair-handed administration of justice do not support bringing charges.

This risk is inevitable and cannot be avoided simply by — as we certainly strive to do — hiring as prosecutors only moral people with righteous motivations. I am reminded of a passage by C.S. Lewis:

It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.

Even the most well-meaning people can do great damage if they lose perspective. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say.

That is yet another reason that having layers of supervision is so important. Individual prosecutors can sometimes become headhunters, consumed with taking down their target. Subjecting their decisions to review by detached supervisors ensures the involvement of dispassionate decision-makers in the process.

This was of course the central problem with the independent-counsel statute that Justice Scalia criticized in Morrison v. Olson. Indeed, creating an unaccountable headhunter was not some unfortunate byproduct of that statute; it was the stated purpose of that statute. That was what Justice Scalia meant by his famous line, “this wolf comes as a wolf.” As he went on to explain: “How frightening it must be to have your own independent counsel and staff appointed, with nothing else to do but to investigate you until investigation is no longer worthwhile—with whether it is worthwhile not depending upon what such judgments usually hinge on, competing responsibilities. And to have that counsel and staff decide, with no basis for comparison, whether what you have done is bad enough, willful enough, and provable enough, to warrant an indictment. How admirable the constitutional system that provides the means to avoid such a distortion. And how unfortunate the judicial decision that has permitted it.”

Justice Jackson understood this too. As he explained in his speech: “If the prosecutor is obliged to choose his cases, it follows that he can choose his defendants. Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.” Any erosion in prosecutorial detachment is extraordinarily perilous. For, “it is in this realm—in which the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself.”

Advocate Just and Reasonable Legal Positions

In exercising our prosecutorial discretion, one area in which I think the Department of Justice has some work to do is recalibrating how we interpret criminal statutes.

In recent years, the Justice Department has sometimes acted more like a trade association for federal prosecutors than the administrator of a fair system of justice based on clear and sensible legal rules. In case after case, we have advanced and defended hyper-aggressive extensions of the criminal law. This is wrong and we must stop doing it.blob:https://abyssum.wordpress.com/a9288ead-d2ca-4bdd-ad5c-d74c3f9af2fdREPORT THIS AD

The rule of law requires that the law be clear, that it be communicated to the public, and that we respect its limits. We are the Department of Justice, not the Department of Prosecution.

We should want a fair system with clear rules that the people can understand. It does not serve the ends of justice to advocate for fuzzy and manipulable criminal prohibitions that maximize our options as prosecutors. Preventing that sort of pro-prosecutor uncertainty is what the ancient rule of lenity is all about. That rule should likewise inform how we at the Justice Department think about the criminal law.

Advocating for clear and defined prohibitions will sometimes mean we cannot bring charges against someone whom we believe engaged in questionable conduct. But that is what it means to have a government of laws and not of men. We cannot let our desire to prosecute “bad” people turn us into the functional equivalent of the mad Emperor Caligula, who inscribed criminal laws in tiny script atop a tall pillar where nobody could see them.

To be clear, what I am describing is not the Al Capone situation — where you have someone who committed countless crimes and you decide to prosecute him for only the clearest violation that carries a sufficient penalty. I am talking about taking vague statutory language and then applying it to a criminal target in a novel way that is, at a minimum, hardly the clear consequence of the statutory text.

This is inherently unfair because criminal prosecutions are backward-looking. We charge people with crimes based on past conduct. If it was unknown or even unclear that the conduct was illegal when the person engaged in it, that raises real questions about whether it is fair to prosecute the person criminally for it.

Examples of the Department defending these sorts of extreme positions are unfortunately numerous, as are rejections of our novel arguments by the Supreme Court. These include arguments as varied as the Department insisting that a Philadelphia woman violated the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act — which implemented the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction — by putting chemicals on her neighbor’s doorknob as part of an acrimonious love triangle involving the woman’s husband, which the Supreme Court unanimously rejected in Bond v. United States … to arguing that a fisherman violated the “anti-shredding” provision in Sarbanes-Oxley when he threw undersized grouper over the side of his boat, which the Supreme Court rejected in Yates v. United States … to arguing that aides to the Governor of New Jersey fraudulently “obtained property” from the government when they realigned the lanes on the George Washington Bridge to create a traffic jam, which the Supreme Court unanimously rejected earlier this year in Kelly v. United States. There are other examples, but these illustrate the point.

Taking a capacious approach to criminal law is not only unfair to criminal defendants and bad for the Justice Department’s track record at the Supreme Court, it is corrosive to our political system. If criminal statutes are endlessly manipulable, then everything becomes a potential crime. Rather than watch policy experts debate the merits or demerits of a particular policy choice, we are nowadays treated to ad naseum speculation by legal pundits — often former prosecutors themselves — that some action by the President, a senior official, or a member of congress constitutes a federal felony under this or that vague federal criminal statute.

This criminalization of politics is not healthy. The criminal law is supposed to be reserved for the most egregious misconduct — conduct so bad that our society has decided it requires serious punishment, up to and including being locked away in a cage. These tools are not built to resolve political disputes and it would be a decidedly bad development for us to go the way of third world nations where new administrations routinely prosecute their predecessors for various ill-defined crimes against the state. The political winners ritually prosecuting the political losers is not the stuff of a mature democracy.

The Justice Department abets this culture of criminalization when we are not disciplined about what charges we will bring and what legal theories we will bless. Rather than root out true crimes — while leaving ethically dubious conduct to the voters — our prosecutors have all too often inserted themselves into the political process based on the flimsiest of legal theories. We have seen this time and again, with prosecutors bringing ill-conceived charges against prominent political figures, or launching debilitating investigations that thrust the Justice Department into the middle of the political process and preempt the ability of the people to decide.

This criminalization of politics will only worsen until we change the culture of concocting new legal theories to criminalize all manner of questionable conduct. Smart, ambitious lawyers have sought to amass glory by prosecuting prominent public figures since the Roman Republic. It is utterly unsurprising that prosecutors continue to do so today to the extent the Justice Department’s leaders will permit it.

As long as I am Attorney General, we will not.

Our job is to prosecute people who commit clear crimes. It is not to use vague criminal statutes to police the mores of politics or general conduct of the citizenry. Indulging fanciful legal theories may seem right in a particular case under particular circumstances with a particularly unsavory defendant—but the systemic cost to our justice system is too much to bear.

We need to recognize that and must take to heart the Supreme Court’s recent, unanimous admonition that “not every corrupt act by state or local officials is a federal crime.”

If we do not, more lives will be unfairly ruined. And more unanimous admonitions from the Supreme Court will come.

3. Conclusion

In short, it is important for prosecutors at the Department of Justice to understand that their mission — above all others — is to do justice. That means following the letter of the law, and the spirit of fairness. Sometimes that will mean investing months or years in an investigation and then concluding it without criminal charges. Other times it will mean aggressively prosecuting a person through trial and then recommending a lenient sentence, perhaps even one with no incarceration.

Our job is to be just as dogged in preventing injustice as we are in pursuing wrongdoing. On this score, as on many, Justice Jackson said it best:

The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman. And those who need to be told would not understand it anyway. A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.

Thank you.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

DEMOCRATS ARE LAYING THE GROUNDWORK FOR REVOLUTION RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES

Posted on September 17, 2020 by abyssum

Democrats are laying the groundwork for revolution right in front of our eyes.

By: Michael Anton

September 4, 2020

As if 2020 were not insane enough already, we now have Democrats and their ruling class masters openly talking about staging a coup. You might have missed it, what with the riots, lockdowns and other daily mayhem we’re forced to endure in this, the most wretched year of my lifetime. But it’s happening.

It started with the military brass quietly indicating that the troops should not follow a presidential order. They were bolstered by many former generals—including President Trump’s own first Secretary of Defense—who stated openly what the brass would only hint at.

Then, as nationwide riots really got rolling in early June, the sitting Secretary of Defense himself all but publicly told the president not to invoke the Insurrection Act. His implicit message was: “Mr. President, don’t tell us to do that, because we won’t, and you know what happens after that.”

All this enthused Joe Biden, who threw subtlety to the winds. The former United States Senator (for 26 years) and Vice President (for eight) has not once, not twice, but thrice confidently asserted that the military will “escort [Trump] from the White House with great dispatch” should the president refuse to leave.

Another former Vice President, Al Gore, publicly agreed. One might dismiss such comments as the ravings of a dementia patient and a has-been who never got over his own electoral loss. But, before you do, consider also this.

Over the summer a story was deliberately leaked to the press of a meeting at which 100 Democratic grandees, anti-Trump former Republicans, and other ruling class apparatchiks got together (on George Soros’s dime) to “game out” various outcomes of the 2020 election. One such outcome was a clear Trump win. In that eventuality, former Bill Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, playing Biden, refused to concede, pressured states that Trump won to send Democrats to the formal Electoral College vote, and trusted that the military would take care of the rest.

The leaked report from the exercise darkly concluded that “technocratic solutions, courts, and reliance on elites observing norms are not the answer here,” promising that what would follow the November election would be “a street fight, not a legal battle.”

Two more data points (among several that could be provided). Over the summer, two former Army officers, both prominent in the Democrat-aligned “national security” think tank world, wrote an open letter to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in which they urged him to deploy the 82nd Airborne Division to drag President Trump from the Oval Office at precisely 12:01 PM, January 20, 2021. About a month later, Hillary Clinton declared publicly that Joe Biden should not concede the election “under any circumstances.”The old English major in me interprets the word “any” to mean “no,” “none,” “nada,” “niente,” “zero,” “zilch” “bupkis”…you get the idea.

This doesn’t sound like the rhetoric of a political party confident it will win an upcoming election. The Cover-Up in Plain Sight These items are, to repeat, merely a short but representative list of what Byron York recently labeled “coup porn.” York seems to think this is just harmless fantasizing on the part of the ruling class and its Democratic servants. For some of them, no doubt that’s true. But for all of them? I’m not so sure.

In his famously exhaustive discussion of conspiracies, Machiavelli goes out of his way to emphasize the indispensability of “operational security”—i.e., silence—to success. The first rule of conspiracy is, you do not talk about the conspiracy. The second rule of conspiracy is, you do not talk about the conspiracy. So why are the Democrats—publicly—talking about the conspiracy? Because they know that, for it to succeed, it must not look like a conspiracy.

They need to plant the idea in the public mind, now, that their unlawful and illegitimate removal of President Trump from office will somehow be his fault. Never mind the pesky detail that the president would refuse to leave only if he were convinced he legitimately won. Remember: Biden should not concede under any circumstances. The second part of the plan is either to produce enough harvested ballots – lawfully or not—to tip close states, or else dispute the results in close states and insist, no matter what the tally says, that Biden won them.

The worst-case scenario (for the country, but not for the ruling class) would be results in a handful of states that are so ambiguous and hotly disputed that no one can rightly say who won. Of course, that will not stop the Democrats from insisting that they won. The public preparation for that has also already begun: streams of stories and social media posts “explaining” how, while on election night it might look as if Trump won, close states will tip to Biden as all the mail-in ballots are “counted.” The third piece is to get the vast and loud Dem-Left propaganda machine ready for war. That leaked report exhorted Democrats to identify “key influencers in the media and among local activists who can affect political perceptions and mobilize political action…[who could] establish pre-commitments to playing a constructive role in event of a contested election.” I.e., in blaring from every rooftop that “Trump lost.”

At this point, it’s safe to assume that unless Trump wins in a blowout that can’t be overcome by cheating and/or denied via the ruling class’s massive propaganda operation, that’s exactly what every Democratic politician and media organ will shout. Stop the Presses What then? The Podesta assumption is that the military will side with the Dems. There are reasons to fear they might. The Obama administration spent a great deal of political capital purging the officer corps of anyone not down with the program and promoting only those who are. Still and all, determining the outcome of an election would be the most open political interference possible from our allegedly apolitical military, and it’s plausible that the brass won’t want to make its quiet support of the ruling class agenda that overt.

The aforementioned Chairman has already stated that the military will play “no role” in the outcome of the election. That’s probably not a feint, but one wonders if it will hold given the obvious attempt to influence military thinking by people like Jeffrey Goldberg in his recent Atlantic essay. Can the Dems rely on the Secret Service to drag Trump out? I have my doubts on this one. I’ve seen the Service up close; it really is (or strongly appears to be) apolitical. It has a job to do: protect the president, whoever that is. Officers take that job very seriously. If they don’t believe Trump lost, I don’t think they can be counted on to oust him. On the other hand, were they to believe he did lose and was refusing to leave—a scenario I find impossible to imagine but the Democrats insist is just around the corner—it’s possible the Service might act.

Barring all that, what’s left? Remember that phrase from the Dem war game: “street fight.” In other words, a repeat of this summer, only much, much bigger. Crank the propaganda to ear-drum shattering decibels and fill the streets of every major city with “protesters.” Shut down the country and ”allow only one message to be heard: “Trump must go.” I.e., what’s come to be known as a “color revolution,” the exact same playbook the American deep state runs in other countries whose leadership they don’t like and is currently running in Belarus. Oust a leader—even an elected one—through agitation and call it “democracy.”

The events of the last few months may be interpreted as an attempted color revolution that failed to gain enough steam, or as a trial run for the fall. Is the Trump Administration prepared? Here’s one thing they could do: play their own “war game” scenario so as to game out possibilities and minimize surprises. They should also be talking to people inside and outside of government whom they absolutely trust to get a clearer sense of who on the inside won’t go along with a coup and who might. They also need to set up or shore up—now—communication channels that don’t rely on the media or Big Tech. Once the ruling class gives word that the narrative is “Trump lost,” all the president’s social media accounts will be suspended. The T.V. channels, with the likely exception of Fox News, will refuse to cover anything he says. Count on it. He’s going to need a way to talk to the American people and he has to find the means, now. For the rest of us, the most important thing we can do is raise awareness. If there is a conspiracy to remove President Trump from office even if he wins, they’re telling you about it precisely to get you ready for it, so that when it happens you won’t think it was a conspiracy; you’ll blame the president. Don’t be fooled.

Michael Anton is a lecturer and research fellow at Hillsdale College’s Washington, D.C. campus, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, and a former national security official in the Trump administration.

Email Link https://conta.cc/2FD6a80

RIP MCINTOSH

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

ARCHBISHOP Carlo Maria Vigano

Posted on September 17, 2020 by abyssum

Above, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, 79, former papal nuncio in the United States (2011-2016), who has just granted a new, wide-ranging interview on the moral issues raised by the upcoming US presidential election Preparing for the November 3 Election As the November 3 presidential election in the United States draws near, following months of lockdowns due to the tragic Coronavirus and consequent disruptions to travel, business, jobs, and schooling, political, economic and cultural tensions are rising. Many are the voices now proclaiming that the November election will be “the most important in our lifetimes.” (Fr. Michael Orsi of Camden, New Jersey, makes this argument here.) As this polarization increases, voices inside the community of the Church have also become increasingly emotional and passionate — and divisive. Often — but not always, of course (see Orsi’s remarks) — the argument centers on the pro-life issue, a matter of profound importance to all followers of Jesus Christ, the lover, protector, savior of all weak, fragile, sinful, human beings. Recently, a number of priests have publicly argued that the support for the pro-life position embraced in the Republican Party platform and the contrasting strongly “pro-choice” position in the Democratic platform, means that Catholics must not in conscience cast their vote for the Democratic candidate, even though he is a Catholic (Joe Biden). In a dramatic video that has now gone “viral,” Father James Altman of the St. James the Less parish in La Crosse, Wisconsin, attracted hundreds of thousands of views for a powerful, emotional August 30 appeal to Catholics in which he concludes: “You cannot be a Catholic and be a Democrat. Period.” (See the video here or here. And here is a story about the video.) But then Altman’s bishop, William Patrick Callahan — in part due, it appears, to the many messages Callahan received after Jesuit FatherJames Martin encouraged Catholics concerned by Altman’s statements to write to Altman’s bishop with such concerns — warned that he might discipline Altman for his remarks. “His (Altman’s) generalization and condemnation of entire groups of people is completely inappropriate and not in keeping with our values or the life of virtue,” said Bishop Callahan. “Canonical penalties are not far away if my attempts at fraternal correction do not work. I pray that Fr. Altman’s heart and eyes might be open to the error of his ways and that he might take steps to correct his behavior and heal the wound he has inflicted on the Body of Christ.” In this context, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò — who has made no secret of his concern for the future of the Church and western civilization if traditional Catholic faith and morals are not embraced and defended in the face of an increasingly influential secular humanism which promotes a “post-Christian” moral vision for mankind — has now entered into the debate. Several days ago, Viganò granted a new, long interview to Italian journalist Marco Tosatti, an old friend, who lives in Rome and runs an influential Catholic website called Stilum Curiae. The archbishop took every question Tosatti addressed to him, so the interview is long and wide-ranging. But the interview is also a very clear window into the mind, and heart, of the archbishop at this difficult time for all of us, and so merits a careful reading from all who would like to understand the message of the archbishop. In essence, Viganò tells us that he sees the present crisis in the Church and society as part of a multi-decade process with roots in the great cultural revolutions on the 1960s, which themselves were in part, he believes, a consequence of the dramatic “revolution” — as many even at the time termed it — of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), which led to the change in the Church’s age-old liturgy, and to many changes in religious life. –RM INTERVIEW BY MARCO TOSATTIWITH ARCHBISHOP CARLO MARIA VIGANÒ12 September 2020Feast of the Holy Name of Mary“The Lord’s right hand is lifted high,the Lord’s right hand has done mighty things.”–Psalm 117 Marco Tosatti: Your Excellency, you served as Apostolic Nuncio in the United States from 2011-2016, and so you know this country very well. The Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, claims to be Catholic, but he is in favor of abortion until the ninth month and “same-sex marriage.” Is it possible to be Catholic and, on an official level, that is, through political and publicly manifest choices, to oppose the teaching of the Church – not on secondary elements, but on vital issues? His Excellency, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: The question you pose, dear Tosatti, requires a well-articulated response, but first and foremost it requires serious reflection and a clear recognition of who is responsible for creating the conditions that have led to the current situation. It was September 22, 2015, the day of Pope Francis’s arrival in Washington, D.C., on the occasion of his apostolic journey to the United States. During the dinner at the Nunciature, which was attended by several members of the papal entourage, I told Pope Francis: “I believe that in the history of the United States there has never been an Administration with so many Catholics at the top: Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. All three of them ostentatiously profess to be Catholic, pro-abortion and in favor of homosexual marriage and gender ideology, in defiance of Church teaching. How do you explain this contradiction?” And I added: “A Jesuit, Father Robert Frederick Drinan, S.J., from Boston College, held the post of Democratic US Representative for the State of Massachusetts in Washington for ten years, from 1971 to 1981. Father Drinan was one of the most strenuous advocates and promoters of abortion!” Pope Francis did not react in the slightest, just as he did not react on June 23, 2013 when, answering one of his specific questions, I revealed to him who Cardinal McCarrick really was. In 1967, two years after the close of the Second Vatican Council, another Jesuit, Father Vincent O’Keefe, S.J. (whom Bergoglio, as Provincial of the Society of Jesus, must have known, as O’Keefe was Vicar General under Father Pedro Arrupe) as President of Fordham University, together with then-Rector of the University of Notre Dame, Father Theodore M. Hesburgh, organized a meeting of all the presidents of the North American Catholic Universities in the United States, at Land O’ Lakes in Wisconsin. During the meeting, they signed a document known as the Land O’ Lakes Statement, which declared the independence of their Catholic universities and colleges from all authority and all bonds of fidelity to the Magisterium of the Church. This document – which I vigorously denounced in my report to Bergoglio and the competent Roman Dicasteries – had devastating consequences for the Church and civil society in the United States. It is not surprising, then, that the formation of hundreds of thousands of young Catholics – some of whom later became political leaders – has led to this betrayal of the Gospel whose disastrous consequences we see today. It is also not surprising that Theodore McCarrick, then-president of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico, was among the signatories of that rebellious document. M.T.: Your analysis doesn’t stop, then, at an observation of the current phenomenon, but goes back to its remote causes, behind which there is a mind that has a long-term plan. C.M.V.: What I wish to emphasize is the close connection between the rebellion of the ultra-progressive clergy – with the Jesuits in the lead – and the education of generations of Catholics, who were formed according to the modernist ideology, flowing into the Council, which served as a premise not only for ’68 revolution in the political sphere, but also for the doctrinal and moral revolution in the ecclesial sphere. Without Vatican II, we would not have had the student revolution that radically changed life in the Western world, the vision of the family, the role of women, and the very concept of authority. In short: the responsibility for the betrayal by these self-styled Catholic politicians rests entirely on the unfaithful clergy, secular and regular, enslaved to modernist ideology, and on the hierarchy, which neither knew how to, nor wanted to intervene with the necessary firmness to prevent this incalculable damage to the entire body of society. In this sense, the deep state and deep church have clearly acted in concert, with the aim of scientifically destabilizing both the civil and ecclesiastical order. Today we have the opportunity to understand the current situation, and it is once again the task of the Authorities to do everything possible to stop this race to the abyss: the Holy See and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have the duty to call to obedience both the rebel clerics, and the laity whom they continue to deceive and even publicly support. M.T.:Do you believe that an authoritative intervention by the Bishops is necessary to call people back to adherence to non-negotiable principles? C.M.V.: When the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued very clear instructions on the exclusion from Holy Communion of Catholic politicians who do not follow the Church’s teaching, it was McCarrick himself, together with Archbishop Wilton Gregory, then-president of the USCCB, who worked to prevent their implementation in the United States. Moral corruption and doctrinal deviation are intrinsically linked and, to effectively heal these wounds in the body of the Church, it is imperative to act on both fronts. If this dutiful intervention does not take place, the Bishops and the leaders of the Church will answer to God for betraying their duty as pastors. M.T.: Why do you see a relationship between the Second Vatican Council and the 1968 student protests? C.M.V.: It is undeniable, even if only from a historical and sociological point of view, that there is a very close relationship between the conciliar revolution and 1968. The very protagonists of Vatican II admit it. Joseph Ratzinger stands out among them, writing: “Adherence to a utopian anarchistic Marxism […] was supported on the front lines by university chaplains and student associations who saw in it the dawn of the realization of Christian hopes. The guiding light is to be found in the events of May 1968 in France. Dominicans and Jesuits were at the barricades. The intercommunion carried out at an ecumenical Mass at the barricades was considered a kind of landmark in salvation history, a kind of revelation that inaugurated a new era of Christianity.” [1] One of the periti [experts] on the Council, Fr. René Laurentin, wrote: “The demands of the May ‘68 movement largely coincided with the Council’s grand ideas, particularly in the Council’s Constitution on the Church and the world. To a certain extent, Vatican II was already a protest against the Curia by a group of bishops who were trying to create an institutionally prefabricated Council.” [2] And the Argentine theologian, Fr. Álvaro Calderón, affirmed: “If there is anything that immediately stands out to those who study the Second Vatican Council, it is the change, in a liberal sense, of the concept of authority. The Pope stripped himself of his supreme authority in favour of the bishops (collegiality); the bishops stripped themselves of their authority in favour of theologians; theologians gave up their science in favour of listening to the faithful. And the voice of the faithful is nothing more than the fruit of propaganda.” [3] This vision is also widely and proudly affirmed on the progressive front [link and link and link], which saw the same demands of the conciliar revolution realized in 1968. Bishop Jacques Noyer, Emeritus of Amiens, recalls: “I am convinced that the spirit that inspired the preparation, celebration and implementation of the Second Vatican Council is a great opportunity for the Church and the world. It is the Gospel offered to the men of today. Deep down, May ‘68 was a spiritual movement, even a mystical one, consistent with the dream of the Council.” [link] Without a “green light” from the Church, the world would never have accepted or taken up the student movement’s demands for rebellion. Beyond the Acts of the Council, it was precisely the spirit of Vatican II that marked the end of a hierarchically constituted society, and of the traditional values common to the Western world: until then, concepts such as authority, honor, respect for the elderly, a spirit of mortification and service, a sense of duty, the defense of the family and one’s Fatherland, were shared and, albeit in a weakened form compared to the past, still practiced. Seeing the Catholic Church, a beacon of truth and civilization for nations, throw open its doors to the world and unhesitatingly discard her glorious heritage, going so far as to revolutionize the Liturgy and water down Morality, was an unequivocal signal to the masses, a sort of approval of the agenda that, at the time, didn’t yet dare to reveal itself completely, even though all of its distinctive signs could be grasped. It destroyed the Church and society, compromised civil and religious authority, discredited marriage and the family, ridiculed patriotism and a sense of duty or labeled them as fascism. All amid the silence of a complicit hierarchy! Those like me, who entered the seminary in the immediate post-conciliar period, can testify that even the Roman Pontifical Seminaries were immediately conquered by this tremor of protest, emancipation and dissolution of all rules and discipline. There can be no doubt about this. If this were not the case, the substantial funding that globalist organizations, such as Soros’s Open Society, have allocated to the activities of the Society of Jesus, and presumably to other Catholic organizations, would be inexplicable. [link] All the premises that were laid down in a nutshell with Vatican II and the student revolution are now consistently proposed by Vatican leaders on the ecclesial front, and by government leaders on the globalist political front. Therefore, it should come as no surprise if the priorities of Bergoglio’s political program coincide with Joe Biden’s priorities. Migration, environmentalism, Malthusian ecologism, gender ideology, the dissolution of the family and globalism are common to the deep state and deep church agenda. Bergoglio’s formal opposition to abortion and the LGBT indoctrination of children is disavowed in practice, both by the Bishops’ support for those who promote it politically, and for those who theorize about the use of birth control and the recognition of the rights of sodomites. The case of Father James Martin, S.J. is emblematic, because it confirms an idem sentire [being of the same mind] between the exponents of globalism and the progressive Catholic intelligentsia. The mark that unites these movements is lying and deception, division and destruction, hatred for Tradition and Christian civilization. And ultimately, the theological aversion to Christ, typical of Lucifer and his followers.(continued below)

M.T.:Your Excellency, don’t you think that this correspondence between the deep state and deep church is also confirmed in relations with China? C.M.V.: The Chinese communist dictatorship is courted by both the deep state and the deep church: Joe Biden is as subservient to the economic and political interests of Beijing as Jorge Mario Bergoglio. It doesn’t matter if human rights are systematically violated in China, if Catholics faithful to the Catholic Church are persecuted, or if a hateful dictatorship massacres millions of innocent people by planning mass abortion: the interests of the globalist agenda prevail even over the evidence of the horrors carried out by the Chinese dictatorship. I would add: the active support carried out by the Jesuits, since the time when McCarrick went to China to prepare the famous agreement that would later be ratified by the Vatican under the Bergoglio pontificate, is significant. The agreement aroused considerable perplexity even in the secular press. The Times recently published an article, titled: «The Pope is Beijing’s unlikely admirer», in which Dominic Lawson denounced that «more and more nations have expressed their concern about the growing evidence of concentration camps and even genocide in the Chinese province of Xinjiang», and pointed out that «there has been silence from the one entity that has the whole of suffering humanity at the core of its mission. I refer to the Holy See». And he adds: «The failure to condemn the genocide is unforgivable.» [link] Furthermore, during the Angelus last July 5, Francis’s omission of the reference to the events in Hong Kong so as not to annoy Xi Jinping, after having circulated the text to the press[link], caused a stir… This subservience of the globalist movement and the Holy See to China is alarming, and is confirmed also by the meetings Father Spadaro, S.J. and other Jesuits had with representatives of the Communist Party during the lockdown, regarding the circulation of the Chinese edition of La Civiltà Cattolica. M.T.:Beyond the current situation, in which the Catholic candidates for the Democratic Party clearly do not hold to the Magisterium of the Church, what should a true Catholic politician be like? C.M.V.: To be Catholic, one must not only be baptized, but must live in a manner consistent with the Faith he has received at the sacred Fount. Faith goes hand in hand with good works, as Sacred Scripture teaches us: without putting into practice our having become children of God through incorporation into the Mystical Body, our words are empty and our witness is incoherent, and indeed scandalous for the faithful and those who do not believe. Father James Martin, S.J. is therefore wrong to limit himself to the purely bureaucratic aspect; his words are refuted by those of the Savior: «You are my friends if you do what I command you» (Jn 15:14). Friendship with God – which consists in the soul being in the state of Grace – depends on our obedience to Our Lord’s orders. Not suggestions or advice: orders! Again, He says: “Not everyone who says to me: ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Mt 7:21). I would add that hell is not reserved for non-Catholics: among the eternal flames there are many baptized souls, even religious, priests and bishops, who have deserved damnation because of their rebellion against the will of the Lord. Self-styled adult Catholics and their preceptors ought to think carefully, before they hear the words of Christ resound: “I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers” (Mt 7:23). A Catholic who supports abortion or gender ideology denies not only the Magisterium, but also the natural law, which constitutes the moral basis common to all peoples, of all times and places. The seriousness of an inconsistency between belonging to the Church and being faithful to her teaching reflects the artificial dichotomy between doctrine and pastoral care, which has crept in since Vatican II, and reached its clearest formulation in Amoris laetitia. Yet on closer inspection, the so-called “laicità dello Stato” [secular nature of the State] also poses serious problems, since it recognizes the right of civil society to deny the divine Kingship of Christ and to reject His Law, while at the same time asking the laity to give a testimony of Faith in which the primacy of Catholic Truth is lowered to the same level as error. What is clear is that Catholics cannot vote for, much less the hierarchy approve, a “Catholic” politician who does not put the integrity of the Church’s doctrine into practice. The self-styled Catholic Joe Biden, who supports partial-birth abortion, i.e. infanticide, and who even before Obama supported gender ideology and celebrated the “marriage” of two men, is not Catholic. Period.

M.T.: Joe Biden has chosen Kamala Harris as his vice-presidential running mate. Harris defended Planned Parenthood, the world’s largest abortion company, in California when it was accused of trading in aborted baby parts. What is the significance of this choice? C.M.V.: The culture of death that underlies today’s prevailing anti-Christian ideology is consistent with itself: the murder of innocent creatures is one of the indispensable elements of those who want to erase not only Christianity, but humanity and creation, which manifests the work of the divine Creator. As I have said many times, this process of dissolution is carried out on two levels: an ideological one, by those who deliberately want evil and want to implement their own hellish plan in forced stages; and an economic one, by those who support the ideology, not necessarily out of conviction, but for profit. Thus, the human sacrifices that have continued to be celebrated in abortion clinics, even during the Covid-19 emergency, have generated profits for Planned Parenthood and the entire chain of death that traffics in the organs of aborted babies. Let us not forget that the abortion lobby – like the LGBT movement – has is one of the main financiers of left-wing election campaigns around the world. If companies ideologically oriented toward the culture of death lavishly fund certain political parties, it’s not surprising that candidates from those parties support their sponsors with laws that favor them. M.T.:An American bishop, Thomas Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, said that for the first time in a while, the Democrats don’t have a Catholic on the ticket. Father James Martin, S.J. replied that Biden was baptized Catholic and therefore is one. What does this back and forth allow us to understand about the state of the Church in America? C.M.V.: I have already noted above that “Catholic candidates” are political candidates who not only call themselves Catholic, but who live in a manner consistent with the Faith and Morals taught by the Church. If being Catholic had no concrete impact, it wouldn’t make any sense to vote for a candidate who doesn’t in fact differ from the others. Father Martin, S.J.’s response is sophism, because he pretends not to see the divide between appearing and being Catholic, between exploiting the “designation” for an electoral advantage and being a true witness to the Gospel in private, civil and political life, and in institutions. What about Father James Martin, S.J.? He was baptized, confirmed, ordained a priest, and even made solemn vows of chastity and obedience; he is S.J….. he is LGBT. Someone else, one of the Twelve, betrayed Him. Let Father Martin, who is always impeccable in his clerical dress, look into the mirror of his soul, and see whom he resembles! M.T.:Your Excellency, why is the Church so interested in the dominant ideology, which is also clearly anti-Christian? C.M.V.: This is a problem we have been carrying around for seventy years. Since that time, Catholic clergy, and in particular the hierarchy, have suffered from a sense of inferiority that places them below their interlocutors in the world. They feel ontologically inferior. They consider Christ’s teaching to be inadequate and clumsily try to adapt it to the secular mentality. They are afraid of appearing outdated, not in step with the times, even centuries late, as another illustrious Jesuit (r.i.p.) has said… This terrible inferiority complex is the direct consequence of a dramatic loss of faith. Christ’s saving message is irreconcilable with the seductions of the world; it is unworthy and illegitimate to adulterate the Magisterium in order to please the world, abusing a sacred authority which is aimed instead at preaching to “all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20). As long as Church leaders persist in not being the first to behave consistently with their own role and with Christ’s teaching, it will be impossible to demand equal consistency from the laity, who look to them as an example. This is confirmed by the fact that there are self-styled “Catholic” politicians who today enjoy the support of self-styled “Catholic” clerics and bishops. It is also confirmed by the fact that those who defend life and the natural law, although they aren’t Catholic, are accused of populism, compared to the dictators of the last century [link], and told they are not Christian [link] or, as in the recent case of Father James Altman, accused by his bishop of being “divisive and causing scandal” [link and link and link]. M.T.: What is the role of Planned Parenthood in American politics? Is it an instrument of freedom and the affirmation of rights, as the “progressives” say, or… C.M.V.: In the globalist society, Planned Parenthood mirrors and plays the opposite role of that played by charitable institutions and foundations that protect life in Christian nations. In Christian societies, children were welcomed with love, and even in situations of poverty and difficulty they were cared for, raised and educated to become good Christians and honest citizens, by putting the word of the Gospel into practice. In anti-Christian societies, Planned Parenthood is tasked with killing these innocents, putting into practice the culture of death inspired by the one who was a “murderer from the beginning” (Jn 8:44). Let us not forget that Planned Parenthood, together with the other multinational abortion companies, serve the Malthusian delirium of the globalist high command, which is planning a drastic decimation of the world population.

M.T.:George Soros and others are trying to pressure Mark Zuckerberg into limiting the pro-life presence and activity on Facebook. The choice of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and these maneuvers to limit those who defend life – what kind of global scenario do they lead to? C.M.V.: The Gospel spread throughout the world thanks to the preaching of the Apostles and the witness of the Martyrs and Confessors of the Faith. Likewise, the anti-gospel of the Synagogue of Satan is spreading because of the preaching of the children of darkness, the testimony of public figures, celebrities and entertainers, and self-styled philanthropists. In the end, what’s left is always a division into two camps: on one side, the good, and on the other, the wicked, in the biblical war between good and evil. And if at one time our saints destroyed idols and pagan temples, leaving no room for devil worshippers, today it is inevitable that followers of groupthink will unite to desecrate and destroy churches, tear down crosses and statues of saints, and erase all memory of faith in Christ. In days gone by, forbidden books were censored in order to protect the simple ones, whose souls would be poisoned by them; today, what is good is censored, because evil does not tolerate it. The global scenario that emerges is manifest before our eyes: until we understand that there can be no dialogue with evildoers (Mt 7:22), that there is no compatibility between the light of Christ and the darkness of Satan, we will not be able to win the battle, because we will not even have recognized that we are at war against the powers of hell. And in a war, there are necessarily two opposing sides: those who refuse to serve under the banner of Christ inevitably end up helping the servants of the Evil One. This awareness is clear to our enemies, but it does not seem to be so clear to those who do not see the Christian life as a “battle.” Allow me to recall the words of President Trump at the end of the recent Republican National Convention: “Our opponents say that redemption for you can only come from giving power to them.” This “redemption” consists in denying God’s sovereign rights over individuals, societies, nations, and replacing the gentle yoke of Christ with the odious tyranny of Satan. And it is, to all intents and purposes, a reversal of the Redemption – the redemption of the slave – which the Savior accomplished on the wood of the Cross. So let us not be fooled by the mellifluous words of those who usurp the biblical metaphor of the children of light and the children of darkness to establish the kingdom of Lucifer: the darkness and chaos we see in American cities are the fruit of the same ideology that approves of postnatal abortion and homosexual marriage, just as the backers of the BLM and Antifa movements are precisely the Democrats and the “philanthropic” foundations that furiously oppose Trump’s re-election.[The antifa.com domain redirects to Joe Biden’s campaign site: joebiden.com] Biden’s mention, indeed, his ignominious usurpation of John Paul II’s famous exhortation “Do not be afraid!” sounds like the Serpent’s cunning trick to take of the fruit of the tree, rather than the courageous invitation that the Polish Pope launched to a world far from Christ. And it is strange that the indignation of Archbishop Wilton Gregory, who was so ready to censure the presidential couple’s visit to the Shrine of St. John Paul II, today doesn’t also blast his opponent, Joe Biden, a perverted Catholic, who is using the image of the same Pope, and of Bergoglio, to advance his electoral campaign. Today, John Paul II’s strong and authoritative words would make the Democrats and perhaps the Bishops themselves tremble: “Do not be afraid to welcome Christ and accept his power. Help the Pope and all those who wish to serve Christ and with Christ’s power to serve the human person and the whole of mankind. Do not be afraid. Open wide the doors for Christ. To his saving power open the boundaries of States, economic and political systems, the vast fields of culture, civilization and development. Do not be afraid. Christ knows ‘what is in man’. He alone knows it.” [link and link] Today Christ’s saving power is replaced by «the voice of creation which admonishes us to return to our rightful place in the created natural order». The redeeming Passion of Our Lord is replaced by the “groan of creation”, and the scourges of divine Justice by the “wrath of Mother Earth,” of the Pachamama… President Trump stated: “Our opponents say that redemption for you can only come from giving power to them. But in this country, we don’t turn to career politicians for salvation. In America, we don’t turn to government to restore our souls. We put our faith in almighty God.” I believe that this faith in God, which clearly must be matched by a consistency of Christian life and witness, will also confirm in the 2020 US presidential election that “the Lord’s right hand has done mighty things” as Psalm 117 reminds us. Official translation from the original Italian by Diane Montagna. [1] Joseph Ratzinger, Les principes de la théologie catholique, Téqui, Paris 1985, p. 433 [2] René Laurentin, Crisi della Chiesa e secondo Sinodo episcopale, Morcelliana, Brescia 1969, p. 16 [3] Álvaro Calderón, La lámpara bajo el celemín. Cuestión disputada sobre la autoridad doctrinal del magisterio eclesiástico desde el Concilio Vaticano II, Ed. Rio Reconquista, Argentina 2009

The people of Beirut are in need of assistance and we have spoken with our friends, the Maronite Monks, about how we can help. You can make a tax deductible donation here and all donations will go to directly to assist those in need in Beirut, under the direction of the Maronite Church. As a donor, you will have an opportunity to join the conversation on virtual calls with those who are on the ground in Lebanon, helping those in need. Click Here to Help

Donate Now to Support The Moynihan Letters

Nonprofits like our own Urbi et Orbi Communications need help weathering the current storms. We do this work in partnership with you: we want you to be informed, to have a sense of the current climate of the Church, and to know both where there is hope for the future and where there is danger of losing sight of Truth. (continued below)

We ask you to support Urbi et Orbi Communications with a small or large contribution, at this difficult time, in order… (1) to keep Inside the Vatican Magazine (which we have published since its founding in 1993, 27 years ago) independent and comprehensive… a unique lens into the Church and the World. Now available to you digitally as well as in print! (2) to ensure that Inside the Vatican Pilgrimages can keep creating encounters for you with the Heart of the Churches, the homes of the Saints, and the Living Stones — the people — of whom the Church is built. Now offering you virtual pilgrimages from your home computer! (see below for more information) (3) to help bring the Churches closer together by “Building Bridges” to heal the schisms of the Church — East and West — through our Urbi et Orbi Foundation. (4) to sustain our occasional news and editorial emails, The Moynihan Letters, bringing the latest valuable information and insight like no other source to thousands of readers around the world

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION CHARGES THE BISHOPS OF THE United States WITH DECEPTION BY ACCEPTING PUBLIC DOLLARS THEY HAVE COMPROMISED THEIR ABILITIY TO PREACH THE TRUTH

Posted on September 16, 2020 by abyssum

the Vortex

BISHOPS RIPPED BY FEDERAL CHAIRMAN

Love of money is the root of all evil.

September 16, 2020

130 Comments

TRANSCRIPT

The Marxist Left is going to have a complete and total meltdown over this. Church Militant sat down recently in our studios with the chairman of the Federal Election Commission, Trey Trainor (a Trump appointee), who set the record straight.

This is blockbuster material because of its truthfulness and straight-up candor. The chairman of the Federal Election Commission is calling out the U.S. hierarchy for what amounts to deception. The motive? In short, the U.S. bishops have, in exchange for money, sold out their obligation to preach the truth.

Our Lord was right, of course. You cannot serve two masters, God and Mammon. You will either love one and despise the other or hate one and love the other. Chairman Trainor says the current practice of bishops silencing priests — like Fr. Altman — who call out Biden’s evil and pretending it’s about their nonprofit status is simply a red herring.Why should someone who speaks from a religious point of view have to be muzzled?Tweet

In May 2017, shortly after assuming office, Trump signed his executive order telling the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to stand down and not go after any churches or religious organizations that engage in political speech as well as endorsements of individual candidates.

The president’s reasoning is “Why should someone who speaks from a religious point of view have to be muzzled (a favorite hobby of the Left as we’ve seen for the past few months — when it suits them, that is)?”

So what we have here is the U.S. hierarchy receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer money (close to half the operating budget of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) pretending they can’t say anything about politics or candidates because they will lose their tax-exempt status — even when they know Trump has canceled that.

Once again, this is an enormous deception on their part. Yet they continue to play the game with the D.C. swamp because it feathers their nest. They play the game all the way down to the great scamdemic — fear-porn, enforcing mask-wearing in parishes and shutting the sacraments — all to help Trump be defeated.Masks create fear. Fear means ‘don’t go to the polls, but mail in your ballots instead.’Tweet

Masks create fear. Fear means “don’t go to the polls, but mail in your ballots instead.” That creates chaos and incredible opportunity for voter fraud, as we already saw in numerous primaries.

Each election cycle the bishops put out, or renew, the previous voter’s guide — a load of hogwash that doesn’t say anything: Despite being called Faithful Citizenship, it encourages neither faith nor citizenship. Being a devout (meaning practicing) Catholic, Trainor sees right through it. The laity have been misled for so long, nothing is really clear anymore to many of them.

That these comments would come from such a highly placed official who is also a practicing Catholicdemands a response from the U.S. bishops. They have been called out by not just a baptized Catholic, but one who is sitting atop the Federal Election Commission and who, essentially, sees all.

Sit back now — wait about a day for this to circulate around the Marxist media and wait for heads to explode. The entire interview, one of the most important we’ve ever conducted here at Church Militant, is available by just clicking on the attached link.

We cannot recommend in any stronger terms that you watch it. It’s important to know — and more important to spread the word. The bishops’ lies and deception must be exposed. Faithful priests preaching the truth must be protected, and the laity must be empowered.

This evil rot has got to be ripped out of the Church. As St. Paul said, the love of money is the root of all evil.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Dr. Anthony Fauci is a United Nations wolf in sheep’s clothing telling America why it is so important to save lives from the dreaded COVID-19 virus while pandering for the most radical parts of United Nations agenda for the world

Posted on September 16, 2020 by abyssum

Fauci Looks To UN To ‘Rebuild The Infrastructure Of Human Existence’

Fauci Looks To UN To ‘Rebuild The Infrastructure Of Human Existence’

YouTube

POSTED BY: WESLEY J. SMITH VIA EPOCH TIMES SEPTEMBER 7, 2020

Dr. Anthony Fauci is a United Nations wolf in sheep’s clothing telling America why it is so important to save lives from the dreaded COVID-19 virus while pandering for the most radical parts of United Nations agenda for the world. That is, Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy.

In his paper, EmergingPandemicDiseases:HowWeGot toCOVID-19, he wrote the following paragraph:

Living in greater harmony with nature will require changes in human behavior as well as other radical changes that may take decades to achieve: rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence, from cities to homes to workplaces, to water and sewer systems, to recreational and gatherings venues. In such a transformation we will need to prioritize changes in those human behaviors that constitute risks for the emergence of infectious diseases. Chief among them are reducing crowding at home, work, and in public places as well as minimizing environmental perturbations such as deforestation, intense urbanization, and intensive animal farming. Equally important are ending global poverty, improving sanitation and hygiene, and reducing unsafe exposure to animals, so that humans and potential human pathogens have limited opportunities for contact. [emphasis added]

This is plain evidence that Fauci is an agent for the United Nations and that he is a self-professed “social engineer” who wants to rebuild the “infrastructures of human existence.” Why should Fauci’s phony propaganda be so hard for America to understand? It’s because Technocrats have created and leveraged fear to the whole world, making populations wide-open to their ‘suggestions’. ⁃ TN Editor

I have never been a singer in the anti-Dr. Anthony Fauci chorus. I always admired his work in the 90s to bring the HIV catastrophe to heel and thought his early efforts as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, advising President Trump on fighting the COVID crisis, provided a vital public service to our country.

But of late, I had been having second thoughts. I am mildly put off by Fauci’s relishing embrace of worldwide celebrity. I thought it a bit frivolous, for example, his agreeing to be interviewed for a cover story in the fashion magazine, In Style.

And it was certainly an eye-popping obeisance to popular culture when the man—who said we will have to give up handshaking forever—benignly blessed in a Vanity Fair interview (of course) “asymptomatic strangers” hooking up for sexual liaisons using the dating app Tinder.

Still, those were minor irritations. Nobody is perfect, after all. When the beautiful people decide to make one an icon, resistance is futile.

But now, Fauci has crossed a line that should sound the alarm—audaciously declaring that combatting infectious disease requires the mindboggling task of “rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence.” Not only that but he opined that accomplishing these top-to-bottom “radical changes” requires “strengthening the United Nations and its agencies, particularly the World Health Organization.”

Fauci’s advocacy for essentially establishing an international rule by experts technocracy—co-authored with his National Institute Scientific Senior Adviser David M. Morens—appeared in the respected scientific journal Cell, an important peer-reviewed publication in which scientists usually share discoveries in fields like stem cell research, genetics, and immunology.

Articles in Cell (and its ilk) mostly focus on important but arcane technical issues of science and medicine. But with increasing frequency, such journals have lately pushed ideology too—usually promoting left-wing and internationalist public policy prescriptions, as Fauci and Morens did in Cell.
(Link to the article –https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(20)31012-6.pdf)

Fauci and Morens’ prescription should give every lover of liberty and national sovereignty great pause. To prevent future pandemics, the authors argue that virtually everything in society will have to be transformed, “from cities to homes to workplaces, to water and sewer systems, to recreational and gatherings venues.”

The scope and breadth of their ambition is stunningly hubristic (conceitedly overbearing & arrogant). “In such a transformation,” they write, “we will need to prioritize changes in those human behaviors that constitute risks for the emergence of infectious diseases. Chief among them are reducing crowding at home, work, and in public places as well as minimizing environmental perturbations such as deforestation, intense urbanization, and intensive animal farming.”

Oh, is that all? No, as a matter of fact, it is not. The authors quickly add: “Equally important are ending global poverty, improving sanitation and hygiene, and reducing unsafe exposure to animals, so that humans and potential human pathogens have limited opportunities for contact.” Holy cow!

Document

Think about what all of that would take! At the very least, the gargantuan task would require unprecedented and intrusive government regulations and the transferring of policy control from the national to international level—nothing less than an international technocratic and authoritarian supra-governing system—with the power to direct how we interact with each other as family, friends, and in community.

This hyper-state would have to control how the economy operates, where we could build factories and plow farms. It would also determine how and where we live, what we eat, and permanently dictate when and if we can travel.

And think about the cost and the means it would take to break inevitable popular resistance.
No thanks!

Below …….This is must, must, must viewing ……….21 minutes

Fauci Pushes UN Goal To “Rebuild The Infrastructure of Human Existence”
Fauci Pushes UN Goal To “Rebuild The Infrastructure of Human Existence”

Fauci Pushes UN Goal To “Rebuild The Infrastructure of Human Existence”

Attachments areaPreview YouTube video Fauci Pushes UN Goal To “Rebuild The Infrastructure of Human Existence”Fauci Pushes UN Goal To “Rebuild The Infrastructure of Human Existence”

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

Vaccines Are Not Routinely Tested Against Placebo

The Power of Fear

People in Authority Lie

Why Are We Ignoring the Nuremberg Charter?

Do Not Trust the Medical or National Security Establishment

Pandemic Responses Are Doing Far More Harm Than Good

Vaccines Are Not Routinely Tested Against Placebo

The Power of Fear

People in Authority Lie

Why Are We Ignoring the Nuremberg Charter?

Do Not Trust the Medical or National Security Establishment

Pandemic Responses Are Doing Far More Harm Than Good

Mikovits/Heckenlively’s Three Books Outline THE COMPLETE FAILURE Of US Public Health…

Three Books – No Prisoners…

In the “Mask” book there are ten reasons:

Americans were gulled into believing that we really did, and do, have a workable US Public Health System.

How do I know I am right?

Every one of the ten reasons listed above should have resonated with “US Public Health” – but not even one of them was espoused at any level…

Then there were those other books Kent and Judy wrote…

Then, of course, there was their New York Times bestseller “Plague of Corruption.”

I have the suspicion that Donald Trump and his administration are using the BolenReport as a resource for their plan to revise US Health Care.

PLEASE HELP US CHANGE HEALTH CARE FOR THE BETTER – SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH GROUPS AND OTHERS YOU KNOW. “FACEBOOK” IS OPENLY SHADOW-BANNING THE BOLENREPORT. PLEASE USE THE BUTTONS BELOW TO SHARE THIS ARTICLE…

RELATED

5 thoughts on “Mikovits/Heckenlively’s Three Books Outline THE COMPLETE FAILURE Of US Public Health…”

HOW THE WHO SAYS PARENTS HAVE ALREADY GIVEN THEIR CONSENT TO THE VACCINE

SPIRITED THINKING SINCE 1888

Catholics’ right to worship ‘unjustly repressed’ by government, says San Francisco archbishop

Love of money is the root of all evil.

Follow Blog via Email

Archives

Recent Posts

Top Posts & Pages

Top Clicks

**In the “Mask” book there are ten reasons:**