Antifa activist Michael Reinoehl (pictured left – white T-shirt) was killed during a shoot-out with “a fugitive task force” attempting to arrest him for the suspected murder of Aaron “Jay” Danielson.
According to the New York Timesan arrest warrant was issued for Reinoehl on Thursday and when police moved-in to make the arrest Reinoehl was killed during an exchange of gunfire with police.
The Post Mellenial – […] Reinoehl had reportedly fled Oregon and crossed state lines into Washington. A federal fugitive task force located him outside of Olympia.
Reinoehl reportedly left an apartment complex appearing to be armed, The Olympianreported, and entered his vehicle when a shootout began. The shooting occurred in the 7600 block of 3rd Way Southeast in Tanglewilde about 7 p.m. Shots were apparently fired at a traffic stop, KATU reported.
Witnesses at the scene cited an unmarked SUV parked on School Street when the vehicle converged with another on the car at the apartment.
The suspect reportedly exited his car and fired what was believed to be an assault rifle at the SUVs. Bystanders noted hearing 40 or 50 shots, then officers returned fire, hitting Reinoehl. (read more)
momofpoms says:September 4, 2020 at 10:47 amThere are consequences to the choices we make.God makes this clear. I am not judging this person,his actions did.He was a grown man who decided violence was his choice of life. So be it.I feel sorry for the people that were put in the position of having to put their lives in danger by going to arrest him.I feel sorry they had to take a life. Evil is evil.All this feeling sorry for these people that are making these violent choices.. I feel sorry for the ones that have been victimized by them,with no one coming to their aid. The people beaten,chased,their homes and businesses destroyed because of the evil choices being made. The children,why did he have his daughter?When is it ok to take a child to a violent riot??? People have had their children taken for much less. He made his choice,it was not a loving peaceful one. It was an evil,mean,lets see how many more people I can kill before I go choice. I am glad he will not be able to victimize anyone else.Liked by 10 peopleReply
MVW says:September 4, 2020 at 10:51 amLooks like Antifa is composed of 2 types, the rich entitled Liberal Arts Fools that wanna be ‘revolutionaries’ and the hardened criminals that have been ‘given’ the right to kill, loot, maim, rape and rampage.This is one of the latter.Liked by 12 peopleReply
Mr e-man says:September 4, 2020 at 11:56 amOr he could be a useful fool for the leaders. They find people who they trick into the dirty work while the leaders hide behind them. This guy doesn’t appear to be too bright.Liked by 3 peopleReply
Rachel Guess says:September 4, 2020 at 12:28 pmMr e-man, not too bright is beyond an understatement. This imbecile took his 11 year old daughter to the portland riots, including having her carry a baseball bat around with her. I always feel sad for children that grow up without a parent, but in this particular case I think it is for the best and hope that someone will step up to the plate to provide the guidance they will need in their teen years, correcting any malignancy/hatred reinoehl managed to encourage in his kids.Liked by 1 personReply
Lady Sid says:September 4, 2020 at 12:38 pmHeard on Red-eye Radio program during the night that Reinhoehl had been stopped some time ago by police on the interstate clocked at 111 mph and driving under the influence of marijuana. His 17 yo son was in the car, too. Until pandemic hit, I didn’t realize what terrible shape whole hunks of our country are in! Adults not adulting is a serious problem.Liked by 1 personReply
Dwayne Dieselsays:September 4, 2020 at 1:00 pmThere are a whole bunch like Reinhoehl out there. But, as we all know, the MSM only likes to focus on one demographic….I know I grew up with a POS drug-addicted alcoholic abusive mom. I just want to know what’s being done to arrest his assassination partners? I assume most on here saw the entire video like I did- where it shows Reinhoehl setting up with the BLM group. Then the cameraman narrates, with a focus on the in some cases well-done graffiti, as he walks down the street…The black car revs its engine and the cameraman gives it all away- I’m nervous that’s the signal. Then you see the black car pull up- where are they? There? Them? pow pow….and his clean up team swings into action cleaning up brass and pretending to render services to the deceased until the whole assassin squad disappears.Should of kept his butt alive to get the rest. Although, they should be able to find the originator of that video.LikeReply
Dwayne Dieselsays:September 4, 2020 at 1:00 pmThere are a whole bunch like Reinhoehl out there. But, as we all know, the MSM only likes to focus on one demographic….I know I grew up with a POS drug-addicted alcoholic abusive mom. I just want to know what’s being done to arrest his assassination partners? I assume most on here saw the entire video like I did- where it shows Reinhoehl setting up with the BLM group. Then the cameraman narrates, with a focus on the in some cases well-done graffiti, as he walks down the street…The black car revs its engine and the cameraman gives it all away- I’m nervous that’s the signal. Then you see the black car pull up- where are they? There? Them? pow pow….and his clean up team swings into action cleaning up brass and pretending to render services to the deceased until the whole assassin squad disappears.Should of kept his butt alive to get the rest. Although, they should be able to find the originator of that video.LikeReply
Tl Howardsays:September 4, 2020 at 1:08 pmI don’t know about *this* guy, but a lot of people who are drawn to such activities are people who belong in mental institutions, just like some of the people who have shot up scores of people in schools and elsewhere.LikeReply
Deplorable_Vespucciland says:September 4, 2020 at 10:56 amAntifaGoons open carrying is nothing new. Always suspected that the blacbloc brigade with their AKs were not the only armed commies in the streets, just the obvious ones. You can see here at about the 3-minute mark four of them with facemasks standing on a street corner. https://www.youtube.com/embed/jD2TrqmhoO4?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparentThis was about three years ago in Austin,TX. Notice the red & yellow hammer & sickle Antifa flags, also the horseback mounted unit in the street. If not for the many riot police separating the patriots from the homegrown terrorists there would have been bloodshed that day.Liked by 1 personReply
daylight58 says:September 4, 2020 at 11:46 amI still recall Zombietime’s “inside the Fremont Street” photos with ChiCom-gear-wearing protestors, and the Asian-heritage woman getting them worked-up.We let too many sleeper commies into the U.S. during the 90’s and ‘aughts’.Liked by 1 personReply
nckhawk says:September 4, 2020 at 10:56 amDamn – it was a good old fashioned western shoot out. How did he get a legal semi-automatic rifle with that kind of criminal record in the land of gun control?Liked by 7 peopleReply
konradwp1 says:September 4, 2020 at 11:27 amYou may laugh about the coffin. But if you are a US taxpayer you will be paying for that sorry cardboard crate with the plastic handles they roll into the furnace.You will also be paying for his daughter’s upkeep. (Although with her murderous father out of the way, there is hope for return on that expense).Liked by 2 peopleReply
Reaganite says:September 4, 2020 at 11:09 amPlease forgive this off topic somewhat related matter: Prayer is Winning. Even as measured by Rasmussen: Witness :Rasmussen 9/4/20 PDJT JA at 52 percent approval today. 40 % strong approvalCompare Obama., who on 9/4/12 had only 48 % JA, and only 27 % strong approvalObama had 100 % Pravda-press apptoval of everything he did.President Trump has US, We the People.And Rev Graham’s Day of Prayer in DC, which will be reflective of so many of us. It’s not partisan: It is moral.Liked by 1 personReply
Reaganite says:September 4, 2020 at 12:53 pmI may have a number wrong above- Gateway Pundit and Washington Examiner say : P45 at 52 % ( “back to pre-corona high”). index of strngth has strong approvals vs disapprovals tied at 42 % each, apparently, and this: Apoparently Rasmussen is getting 47 % job approval among black likely voters.I think these may underatimate P45 strength. But they measure the TREND.THh trend is victory in a fair election. and a good chance to beat The Cheat, which is pretty much openly discussed by The Coup operatives.LikeReply
Screaming Eagle says:September 4, 2020 at 11:30 am50 gunshots fired ?…..that’s sounds excessive……….Clearly, 49 would have done the job. Still, nice shootin’ Marshalls. As we used to say in the old west – “dead or alive – don’t matter.”LikeReply
uncreativ says:September 4, 2020 at 11:45 amThe story reports the information about shootings by suggesting the 40-50 shots happened before police responded. Either that was sloppy reporting, or there were others involved in shooting at the cops. Did this guy really get 50 shots off, and then the police responded?LikeReply
Guyski says:September 4, 2020 at 11:31 amTo all those whitey BLM protestors. Just remember at the end of the day (or your life) you are still white and you ain’t gonna get a big send off. Liked by 1 personReply
Maquis says:September 4, 2020 at 11:48 amWhat they all need to be assured of, Black, White, or Whateverwhocares, is the warm welcome that awaits them in their next world and our willingness to pay their fare.LikeReply
SMP Belltown says:September 4, 2020 at 11:32 amI wonder how many body cams were in operation by the members of various law enforcement agencies during this apprehension? Also, how many security cams might have captured the timing of the tragic events…. If there was plenty of coverage, it should decrease the legendary martyr value of the event. If any body cams on the 4+ officers involved were conveniently “off”, then fiscal and operational heads should probably roll at several departments.Liked by 2 peopleReply
uncreativ says:September 4, 2020 at 11:48 amI know, right? So it’s not that they care about Black lives–they don’t or they would care about all the others who suffer death by the crime of murder. And they don’t really care about white people who die at the hands of the police, so that isn’t what really motivates them. All that is left is their marxism.LikeReply
kleen says:September 4, 2020 at 12:37 pmI think the leaders received some tips from their masters(Demoncraps officials) that they are being investigated and to be careful.They have been quiet. 2 nights ago another thug was rightfully killed by cops and no riots. They had an agitated gathering but that was it. Money has dried out to the terrorists, no more buses to the next riot destination. The plantation masters are hanging on to the donated money to see how badly they are about to be exposed for past terrorism planing. Ball squeezing going on… They feel it.LikeReply
revarmegeddontthunderbird says:September 4, 2020 at 11:44 amBreaking news….Flags at all state buildings in Oregon and Washington will be flown at half mast in honor of the meth head fascist ANTIFA murder. Then the state legislatures will debate naming a holiday after him.Liked by 1 personReply
TMonroe says:September 4, 2020 at 11:56 amFunny how this isn’t spurring a hue and cry for gun control laws cuz fringe gringo nationalist went postal. Too many key elements of the narrative don’t workLikeReply
MJJ says:September 4, 2020 at 11:56 amUnfortunately, Antifa Activist Michael Reinoehl chose to think he was Above the Law and instead of turning himself to defend his views and reasons for killing chose to choose more killing, it is sad to see such misguided mindless actions when in America there are so many more ways to try and change others minds without lost of life. More could have exchanged views than the need to shoot bullets at each other.LikeReply
Child of Morning says:September 4, 2020 at 12:09 pmThere were others, pointing out targets for scumbag Reinoehl. These folks need the dirt nap too. I hope Law Enforcement is looking into these BLM animals. I have strong doubts. Better would be that the street knows who these targets are.LikeReply
T2020 says:September 4, 2020 at 11:57 amI mentioned to someone the other day who was frustrated that there had been no arrest. All I said was, “We’ll see that happens.”LikeReply
teabag14 says:September 4, 2020 at 11:59 amSomeone else may have pointed this out: where I come from it’s called ‘suicide by cop’. Probably hoped his brethren would riot for him. Maybe they will. Gave his life for the cause. Sucker. LikeReply
4EDouglas says:September 4, 2020 at 12:02 pmTake note: US Marshals-not FBI. Also the Fed have Deputized Oregon State Police as US Marshals. They DOJ is going after more Antifa types.. We will see more and quite shocking results. soon. Maybe even Governors and Mayors…Liked by 1 personReply
lackawaxen123 says:September 4, 2020 at 12:10 pmAntifa Activist Killed During Shoot-Out With Task Force Attempting Arrest…I hope we see dozens of these headlines over the next month or 2 …LikeReply
bruzedorange says:September 4, 2020 at 12:31 pmOr will we actually be seeing “Potential Intel Resources and Prosecution Witnesses All Killed in Shootouts with Feds”…?I’m not suggesting, just admitting to where the level of distrust and suspicion has sunk.LikeReply
California Joe says:September 4, 2020 at 12:12 pmObviously, these middle-aged White criminals are being paid handsomely otherwise they wouldn’t be rioting for Black Lives or anybody else’s life! The FBI is being run by idiots!Liked by 2 peopleReply
63gordfa says:September 4, 2020 at 1:04 pm“You say you want a revolution Well, you know We all want to change the world You tell me that it’s evolution Well, you know We all want to change the world But when you talk about destruction Don’t you know that you can count me out Don’t you know it’s gonna be All right, all right, all right”I guess Reinoehl was too young to have heard that message from John Lennon’s Revolution 1.LikeReply
Walt says:September 4, 2020 at 12:51 pmI’m curious about the western countries that went down the gun confiscation rabbit hole (Britain, Australia, NZ and Canada). Seeing what’s been happening here, is there any public pressure towards allowing the people to rearm? I understand that the British have been disarmed for so long that most probably have never seen a firearm but I’ve always thought of the Auzzies and NZ as being an independent people not prone to be subjugated. Surely, there must be a lot of them who realize now that the loss of their firearms was a major setback for a free people.I suspect there are still many undocumented firearms in the hands of the public and that reloading equipment and supplies are available as competition shooters don’t buy off the shelf.If someone from Aus/NZ could post what they perceive the “public mood” to be, I would appreciate it . I understand that you have no 2A and the politicians there are as corrupt as they are here but if enough people could bring pressure to bear…. ThanksLikeReply
MIKE says:September 4, 2020 at 12:53 pmNear the end of his show, Chris Plante was saying that reports have come out that Mr. Neck-tatt may have shot himself. Dunno, but the world is a little happier today, regardless.LikeReply
MustangBlues says:September 4, 2020 at 12:58 pmWhere are the videos??? Every scene with rioters in it, there are hundreds of camera video out immediately; the police did not have body cams??? And the news report of ”witnesses” ( you know the kind, the ones that said brown had his hands up when shot by wilson in Ferguson), said 50 shots were fired and then the police fired back??!! Sounds not likely a numerate person giving that assessment.LikeReply
namberak says:September 4, 2020 at 12:59 pmI just had the terribly cynical thought that if this dead piece of garbage were black, er, Black, the mob would no doubt finish burning down Seattle and throw in Olympia as a bonus.Liked by 1 personReply
minnesotamike55 says:September 4, 2020 at 1:02 pmAnybody that wears a clown outfit like he did should be looked upon with much suspicion. Turns out he, like probably most of these rioters, was a scumbag thug. Buh bye.As to his comments “I had no choice, I had to do it” that is too commonly part of the liberal mindset. “A policeman standing on a corner made me loot”, “A federal building in the middle of liberal utopia made me start it on fire”, “Trump saying hydroxy has some benefit made me not give it to my patients”, “Prosperous well educated white people with good jobs left me no choice but to shoplift”, and on it goes. The left gives Trump and others incredible power that makes them do things they can’t control. If true, then all Trump has to say is “stop the violence,vote for me” and he wins. No, the left has many choices if they don’t like something, unfortunately they choose a path that is hateful and harmful to most of America. They really have no logical thought process when it comes to problem solving. What did they do immediately after learning Trump won? They screamed at the sky like little children! Someone should do a campaign video with democrats saying “we will fix this problem by (screaming at sky), we will do better by (screaming at sky), we care about you and will(scream at the sky), and on and on.LikeReply
jumpinjarhead says:September 4, 2020 at 1:08 pmIt was about time! He used his freedom to spout more propaganda and try to justify his murder of an evil Prayer Patriot (that our enemies make a point to label an “extreme right wing” group (no doubt because their marxist “Southern Poverty Law Center” says it is.).We need to note the difference between this terrorist and what Antifa used to be 4 years ago. This murderer was almost 50 years old, an Army vet who was obviously unhinged (previously arrested for being high on drugs, carrying a gun -and drag racing against his teenage son over 110 mph while his 11 y/o daughter was in the car with him. Thereafter he was arrested and let go with no charges (in spite of his pending trial for the previous drag racing crimes) after being caught with a gun at a prior “peacedsful demonstration.”According to reports, he was killed after he fired 30-40 rounds from an “assault rifle” at federal officers.This is more the kind of terrorist we need to be thinking of (and preparing for).LikeReply
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on SOMETIMES WE ARE ALLOWED TO WITNESS JUSTICE BEING ADMINISTERED HERE RATHER THAN IN THE HEREAFTER
Why Trump Doesn’t Just’Send In the Troops’ BY: Kurt SchlichterSeptember 03, 2020 There are a lot of solid conservatives frustrated and appalled by the Biden Riots, and a lot of those folks wonder why Donald Trump doesn’t just make it all stop – you know, sort of like Grandpa Badfinger implicitly promises he will do if we restore the garbage liberal establishment, except with military force. “Call up the Guard,” right? But what folks do not understand are the practical problems with Trump using troops (sending federal law enforcement officers presents similar problems, but also a unique and big one – there just aren’t as many federal cops as there are soldiers). The devil is in the details, and the devil here makes Trump pulling the trigger on the troops in the current situation a very bad idea. We should support his strategic patience and not do what the Democrats want by getting mad at the president for refusing to stumble into an ambush. Let me share some background. After I got off active duty the first time, I joined the California Army National Guard. For the next 23 years I participated in, planned, and commanded during multiple civilian support operations. I was in the Los Angeles Riots, the Northridge Earthquake, and I commanded two battalions along with other forces in northern San Diego County during the 2007 fires. I planned ops from platoon to state headquarters level, and wrote about civil support ops in Infantry magazine and even in a first-of-its-kind law review article. So, I know a little about this stuff. And what I know tells me that, despite our fantastic soldiers’ abilities, this is a bad idea. But why? Let’s address the donkey in the room – Democrat governors, mayors and district attorneys do not want military forces deployed and will at least refuse to cooperate with them, if not actively hinder them. That makes a blue city like Portland a “non-permissive environment,” and the military is certainly designed to operate in them. That’s why when the military moves in force with, say, an infantry brigade combat team (IBCT) of 5,000 soldiers plus support elements (thousands more), we essentially deploy a small town with everything we need to survive – food, fuel, ammo, medical, maintenance, commo, power, transportation, even lawyers. Typically, in cities engulfed in chaos, it’s a permissive environment. The cops work with us. They take custody of arrestees, hold them, and the DA prosecutes them. Hospitals take in our wounded and sick. We use local government property to operate out of. We have access to the infrastructure of society. But what if the Democrat regime refuses to allow all that? Then the troops are on their own; it’s now an invasion, and while doable logistically, it takes a massive footprint. A permissive environment solves some, but not all of the issues we will review. A non-permissive environment makes the whole thing exponentially worse. First, let’s think through the force package. Who do we send, and under what rules? We keep hearing about the National Guard, but few understand it. The Guard is a reserve force trained and equipped just like active duty troops and containing a large number of active duty veterans (I joined after serving in Desert Storm). It works for the state governor – the Democrat who hates Trump – unless it is “federalized,” in which case it becomes an active duty unit and Trump is its commander-in-chief. Now, federal troops are barred from enforcing civilian law by the Posse Comitatus Act, unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act. On state status, Posse Comitatus does not apply and Guard forces are not prohibited by federal law from enforcing civilian law. Got it? Seems complicated, huh? Yeah, because it’s a giant cluster fark that only gets more farked as we dive in to the details of implementing the idea of sending in soldiers. Oregon has the 41st IBCT. It has five “maneuver battalions,” the ~500-soldier or so sub-units that would actually be on the street (well, maybe two-thirds tops of those units’ personnel would actually be on the street with guns. All the rest are support, as are the IBCT’s other units). Only three battalions are actually in Oregon, and one of those is an artillery unit. The rest are in other states. What is the readiness of the 41st? Are elements deployed overseas? What’s their manning? Their maintenance readiness? Who knows? Maybe Trump uses federal forces, like the 82nd Airborne Division’s ready brigade. Now they have to fly from Ft. Bragg, North Carolina, to Portland. Can they land at the airport? Remember, it’s a non-permissive environment. Will the Democrat regime refuse to allow them to land, or if they do land, refuse to service the planes? I guess we need to send in an Air Force airbase unit to run things. That’s more troops. And how are we supporting this rapidly expanding force package? Will local contractors serve the military, or be too intimidated to work with the military (they will still be in Portland long after the Army goes home). I guess we could bring in a support brigade. We’re over 10,000 troops now. Say, how do we get their vehicles there? Drive them across the country? Put them on trains? That takes time. Where does this military force assemble if the state and local government are not letting them use local facilities? Maybe the military just moves into, say, a stadium parking lot to use as a base. And maybe a federal judge issues an injunction saying it can’t. Oh, we’ll need more troops to defend this logistics and command and control base. And we’ll need a combat support hospital in case the local government refuses to allow local hospitals to treat the sick and wounded.Please, try and maintain a straight face saying there is no way Democrat politicians in a blue city would forbid our troops from getting medical care. Let’s put the awkward issues of logistics aside and talk tactics, though professionals always think logistics while amateurs only think tactics. What do the troops actually do? Patrol? Got to wait on our vehicles. Do they go arrest looters? For what? If the looters violate federal law – like crossing a state line to riot – that’s easy. You hook them up, turn them over to the federal cops and the US attorney prosecutes them. But what if they commit a state crime, which most routine crimes are? In LA ‘92, we grabbed a crook and handed him over to the LAPD and he went to jail and got prosecuted. But the Portland police will be ordered not to cooperate. Moreover, the Portland DA will not charge them, much less prosecute them. What do you do with them? How do the feds hold a rioter for a state crime that he is not charged with? Non-permissive environments suck, huh? Then there is the rules of engagement (ROE) issue. What are the ROE going to be? Basically, the ROE outlines what force can you use on the rioters, with particular interest in when you can shoot them. That’s always a huge deal. You want these soldiers to go out and do something to the rioters, so you need to decide what. Remember, they are the ones who can get prosecuted if they kill someone. Oh, Trump’s Department of Justice won’t prosecute them today, but will a Democrat administration’s DOJ do that tomorrow? Don’t scoff – British ex-soldiers today are, despicably, getting prosecuted for killing IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland back in the 1970s. Now, the Democrat regime would love nothing more than for a military unit to open fire on “peaceful protesters.” So, would the media. Looking for fairness? How many of the mainstream outlets have reported that one of the criminals Kyle Rittenhouse shot in self-defense was a convicted pedophile? The demagogues are aching for Trump to throw them into the briar patch of a military crackdown. Remember, this whole riot scheme is an information operation designed to present the country as out of control and Trump as, alternatively, ineffectual or authoritarian. These rioters have no actual power. They don’t hold ground and a determined police response by local cops with a DA who prosecutes them would scatter them. The Democrats are using them to intimidate voters into accepting Biden’s implicit argument that if we allow the liberal establishment back into power, these bad people will go away (they won’t, but that’s what the Dems want you to think). These Antifa and BLM street punks can serve the liberal elite’s cause just as well as martyrs. Bottom Line: All in all, sending military forces into a non-permissive environment in a blue city is a recipe for disaster. It’s easy to fume about Trump not waving his magic camo wand and making the Antifa and BLM rioters disappear, but the reality of the situation created by the Democrat regime makes it a disaster waiting to happen. You either go in and essentially invade the cities and use an iron fist to crush the rioters – and make Kent State’s body count look as paltry as the audience for a Joe Biden rally – or you alienate some on your own side when you refuse to save the Democrat demagogues’ bacon by becoming the villain in their information operation. These hard truths are not to say there is nothing for the feds to do. Until the Democrat regimes decide this needs to end and cooperate, the feds should do one of the few things the feds are good at – taking down large criminal organizations. Antifa is just like the drug cartels with less testosterone, and just like the mafia except with worse clothes and less testosterone. The feds should ignore the street thugs who make up the shock troops. It was no coincidence that 100 percent of the people Kyle shot had criminal records. The feds should focus on the LARPing middle class SJWs and the dedicated Marxist cadre and use RICO, conspiracy, and other federal charges to take them out and lock them up. When little Ashleigh from the suburbs realizes that she’s looking at five years in federal prison instead of heading back to the Evergreen State to finish her Bolivian Trans Dance of the 13th Century degree, the lawyer daddy buys her will get her to sing like a canary about her commie pals. The feds should identify and map the whole criminal organization, identify its players and funding, and wipe it out. Look, it’s perfectly understandable to be frustrated. But getting mad at Trump because he is not doing something that would turn into the cluster fark to end all cluster farks is doing exactly what the liberal elite and its media minions want. Let Portland and the rest of the blue cities trash themselves. Let the DOJ, which has already charged dozens of these degenerates with federal beefs, do its thing. And make sure you get out and vote straight Republican if you want any hope of this ever ending. Email Link https://conta.cc/3hX85lH
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, in a new response to two of his critics – Fr. Raymond de Souza and Fr. Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M. Cap. – shows himself indignant at the fact that these priests seem more willing to find fault among those who defend orthodoxy, rather than with those who have been spreading heterodoxy for decades. He proposes that, instead of “assuming schisms and heresies where there are none, it would be appropriate and more useful to fight error and division where they have nested and spread for decades.”
He also notices that, while it is now seemingly allowed to disregard and dismiss previous Councils and the perennial Magisterium of 2,000 years, it is not allowed to do the same with the Second Vatican Council, thus establishing a two-fold standard – one in defense of heterodoxy, and another for the weakening of orthodoxy.
Additionally, the retired Italian prelate also notices that both of his critics did not enter into the substance of the debate, but, instead, ostracize the one of the opposite opinion. He states that “in defense of the conciliar totem the only response is the delegitimization of the interlocutor, his ostracization, and the generic accusation of wanting to attack the unity of the Church.”
However, for Viganò, this method does not have any effect anymore. “I think,” he explains, “that the answer [for why he is being called a schismatic and heretic] is obvious by now: a taboo has been broken, and a discussion about Vatican II, that up until now had remained confined to very restricted areas of the ecclesial body, has now begun on a large scale. And what most disturbs the supporters of the Council is the observation that this dispute is not about if the Council is open to criticism, but about what to do to remedy the errors and equivocal passages found in it.”
That is to say: the discourse about the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath has already moved forward, in spite of these intellectually poor attempts at delegitimizing this debate by calling out “schismatic!”
Archbishop Viganò himself has only recently, in a September 1 statement, made it clear that he intends to remain in the Catholic Church and to fight those within her hierarchy who are undermining the Catholic Faith from within.
Both Weinandy and de Souza have each written an article denouncing the former apostolic nuncio for his criticism of the Council. In his August 13 piece, Weinandy stated: “Archbishop Viganò sees the Second Vatican Council as schismatic, and even more than this, as heretical. My concern is that, in his radical reading of the Council, the archbishop is spawning his own schism,” thereby accusing the archbishop of his own schismatic attitude. And de Souza, following in Weinandy’s footsteps, does the same. But while Weinandy wonders whether the archbishop committed the “unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit,” de Souza says in his August 28 piece: “Some people, even former admirers, think he may have become a bit unstable, yet rendering an accurate assessment has been near impossible, given that he has been in hiding since 2018. His writings are all we have. And now, even Father Weinandy questions whether they are truly authentic. Priest, curialist, diplomat, nuncio, administrator, reformer, whistleblower. Is it possible that, at the end of it all, heretic and schismatic would be added to that list?”
As an observer of this debate told Catholic Family News: this name-calling, using the words “schismatics” and “heretics” with regard to the Vatican II debate, reminds one of the political atmosphere, where dissenters are being silenced with the help of the words “racist.” “It shuts down debate,” the source said.
Yet we have passed this stage. We are not allowing this debate – which is so crucial for the purification of the Church – to be silenced. The truth must come out and will come out, the questions still need to be answered: How did the Church get to this disastrous situation where every aspect of her teachings – from the divinity of Christ to the indissolubility of marriage – is being questioned? And how do we free us from these false teachings and come again to the beauty of the Catholic Faith in its doctrine, its liturgy, and its discipline.
For this debate, we need the voice of Archbishop Viganò, who does not claim to know all the answers but who is willing to give his name and reputation – at the cost of being labeled a “schismatic” and “heretic” – in order to encourage others, especially other prelates, to come and join him.
Please see below for the full text of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s new statement:
Archbishop Viganò’s Episcopal Coat of Arms
A few days ago, shortly after another article of a similar tone was published by Fr. Thomas Weinandy (here), Fr. Raymond J. De Souza wrote a commentary titled, “Is Archbishop Viganò’s Rejection of the Second Vatican Council Promoting Schism?” (here). The writer’s thought is immediately expressed in the subtitle: “In his latest ‘testimony,’ the former nuncio holds a position contrary to the Catholic faith on the authority of ecumenical councils.”
I can understand that in many ways my interventions can provoke no little annoyance with the supporters of Vatican II, and that questioning their idol is reason enough to merit the most severe canonical sanctions, after shouting against schism. Their annoyance is combined with a certain spite in seeing that – despite my choice not to appear in public – my interventions are arousing interest and are fueling a healthy debate about the Council and more generally about the crisis of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. I do not claim myself to have the merit of having initiated this dispute: other eminent prelates and high-profile intellectuals before me have highlighted critical issues that need a solution; others have shown the causal relationship between Vatican II and the present apostasy. Faced with these numerous and well-argued critiques, no one has ever proposed valid responses or shared solutions. On the contrary, in defense of the conciliar totem the only response is the delegitimization of the interlocutor, his ostracization, and the generic accusation of wanting to attack the unity of the Church. And this last accusation is all the more grotesque when we see how obviously canonically cross-eyed the accusers are: they unleash the malleus haereticorum [hammer of heretics] against those who defend Catholic orthodoxy, while they bow down in reverence to ecclesiastics, religious-s.j., and theologians who daily attack the integrity of the depositum fidei. The painful sufferings of so many prelates, among whom Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre undoubtedly stands out, confirm that even in the absence of specific accusations there are those who succeed in using the canonical norm as the tool of persecuting the good, and at the same time are careful not to use it with real schismatics and heretics.
How can we forget in this regard, those theologians who had been suspended from teaching, removed from seminaries, or hit by censures from the Holy Office, and who, precisely because of their “merits”, deserved to be called to the Council as consultors and experts? Those rebels of liberation theology who were admonished under the pontificate of John Paul II and rehabilitated by Bergoglio must also be included; not to mention the protagonists of the Amazon Synod and the bishops of the Synodal Path, promoters of a heretical and schismatic German national church; without omitting the bishops of the Patriotic Chinese sect, recognized by the agreement between the Vatican and the communist dictatorship of Beijing.
Father de Souza and Father Weinandy, without entering into the merits of the arguments I have presented, which both of them disdainfully describe as intrinsically schismatic, ought to have the fairness to read my interventions before censuring my thoughts. In them they would find mention of the painful labor that led me to understand only in the last few years that I have been misled by those in authority whom I never could have imagined would have been able to betray those who placed their trust in them. I do not think that I am the only one who has understood this deception and denounced it: laity, clerics, and prelates have found themselves in the painful situation of having to recognize a fraud that was cunningly hatched, a fraud that consisted in my opinion of having resorted to a Council to give apparent authority to the initiatives of the Innovators and obtaining obedience from the clergy and the people of God. And this obedience was demanded by the pastors, allowing no exception, in order to demolish the Church of Christ from within.
I have written and declared many times that it is precisely in virtue of this falsification that the faithful, respectful to the authority of the hierarchy, did not dare to disobey en masse the imposition of heterodox doctrines and protestantized rites. Among other things, this revolution was not accomplished all at once, but according to a process by stages, in which the novelties introduced ad experimentum were later made a universal norm, with ever tighter turns of the screw. And I have likewise reiterated several times that if the errors and equivocal points of Vatican II had been formulated by a group of German or Dutch bishops, without giving them the mantle of authoritativeness of an ecumenical council, they would probably have merited the condemnation of the Holy Office, and their writings would have ended up on the Index. Perhaps it was precisely for this reason that those who upset the preparatory schemas of the Council took care, during the reign of Paul VI, to weaken the Supreme Congregation and abolish the Index librorum prohibitorum, on which in other times their own writings would have appeared.
De Souza and Weinandy apparently believe that it is not possible to change one’s opinion, and that it is preferable to remain in error rather than retrace one’s steps. Yet this attitude is very strange: multitudes of cardinals and bishops, priests and clerics, monks and nuns, theologians and moralists, laity and Catholic intellectuals all felt compelled, in the name of obedience to the hierarchy, to renounce the Tridentine Mass and to see it replaced with a rite copied from Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer; to throw away treasures of doctrine, morality, spirituality, and an inestimable artistic and cultural patrimony, obscuring 2,000 years of Magisterium in the name of a Council, which moreover intended to be pastoral and not dogmatic. They heard it said that the conciliar church was finally open to the world, stripped of hateful post-Tridentine triumphalism, medieval dogmatic encrustations, liturgicaltrappings, the sexophobic morality of Saint Alphonsus, the notionism of the Catechism of Saint Pius X, and the clericalism of the Pacellian Curia. We were asked to renounce everything, in the name of Vatican II. Now, after more than half a century, we see that nothing was saved of what little apparently still seemed to remain in force!
Yet, if repudiating the preconciliar Catholic Church by embracing the conciliar renewal was hailed as a gesture of great maturity, a prophetic sign, a way of keeping step with the timesand ultimately something inevitable and incontestable, today repudiating a failed experiment that led the Church to collapse is considered a sign of incoherence or of insubordination, according to the adage “No going back” of the Innovators. At that time the revolution was said to be salutary and necessary, but today the restoration is called harmful and a harbinger of divisions. Back then we were told we could and should deny the glorious past of the Church in the name of aggiornamento [updating]; today questioning a few decades of deviation is considered schismatic. And what is even more grotesque is that the defenders of the Council are simultaneously so flexible with those who deny the preconciliar Magisterium, while stigmatizing with the Jesuitical and infamous qualification of rigid those who, out of consistency with that same Magisterium, cannot accept ecumenism and interreligious dialogue (which resulted in Assisi and Abu Dhabi), the new ecclesiology and the liturgical reform stirred by Vatican II.
All this, of course, has no philosophical nor even a theological foundation: the superdogmaof Vatican II prevails over everything else, it annuls everything, cancels everything, but it does not permit itself to suffer the same fate. It is precisely this that confirms that Vatican II, although a legitimate Ecumenical Council – as I have elsewhere affirmed – is not like the others, because if this were the case the Councils and the Magisterium that preceded it would have had to be held as equally binding (not only in words), preventing the formulation of the errors contained or implied in the texts of Vatican II. Civitas in se divisa [The city is divided]…
De Souza and Weinandy do not want to admit that the stratagem adopted by the Innovators was very cunning: in order to gain approval for the revolution by those who thought that they were dealing with a Catholic Council like Vatican I, in an apparent respect for the norms, declared that it was only a pastoral Council, not a dogmatic Council. This allowed the Council Fathers to believe that the critical points would in some way be settled, the equivocal points would be clarified, certain reforms would be reconsidered in a more moderate sense. And while the enemies had organized everything, down to the tiniest details, at least twenty years prior to the convocation of the Council, there were those who naively believed that God would prevent the coup of the Modernists, as if the Holy Spirit could act against the subversive will of the Innovators. A naiveté into which I myself fell together with the majority of my brothers and Prelates, who were formed and raised with the conviction that Pastors – and the Supreme Pontiff first and foremost – were owed an unconditional obedience. Thus good Catholics, because of their distorted concept of absolute obedience, obeyed their Pastors unconditionally; they were led to disobey Christ, precisely by those who had made quite clear what their goals were. Even in this case it is evident that assent to the conciliar magisterium did not prevent dissent from the perennial Magisterium of the Church – it actually required such dissent as a logical and inevitable consequence.
After more than fifty years, we still do not want to take note of an uncontestable fact, and that is that there was an intent to use a subversive method that up until then had been adopted in the political and civil sphere, applying it sine glossa to the religious and ecclesial sphere. This method, typical of those who have, to say the least, a materialistic vision of the world, found the Conciliar Fathers who truly believed in the action of the Paraclete unprepared, while the enemies knew how to falsify the votes in the conciliar commissions, weaken the opposition, obtain exceptions to established procedures, and present a norm as apparently harmless in order to later draw a disruptive and opposite effect from it. And the fact that that Council took place in the Vatican Basilica, with the Fathers in miter and cope or in choral dress, and John XXIII in tiara and mantle, was perfectly consistent with the orchestration of a scenography especially designed to deceive the participants and indeed reassure them that, in the end, the Holy Spirit would remedy even the messes of subsistit in or the blunders on religious freedom.
In this regard, I would like to quote an article that has appeared in the last few days at Settimo Cielo entitled, “Historicizing Vatican Council II. Here’s How the World of Those Years Influenced the Church” (here). Sandro Magister informs us of a study by Professor Roberto Perici on the Council, which I recommend reading in its entirely but that can be summarized in these two quotes:
The dispute that is inflaming the Church, on how to judge Vatican II, must not be only theological. Because first of all the historical context of that event must be analyzed, all the more so for a Council that in setting its agenda declared it wanted to “open up to the world.”
I know well that the Church – as Paul VI reiterated in “Ecclesiam Suam” – is in the world, but is not of the world: it has values, behaviors, procedures that are specific to it and that cannot be judged and framed with totally historical-political, worldly criteria. On the other hand – it must be added – neither is it a separate body. In the 1960s – and the conciliar documents are full of references to this effect – the world was moving toward what we now call “globalization,” it was already strongly influenced by the new mass media, unprecedented ideas and attitudes were spreading very quickly, and forms of generational mimicry were emerging. It is unthinkable that an event of the breadth and relevance of the Council should have been taking place in the enclosure of St. Peter’s Basilica without measuring itself against what was happening.
In my opinion this is an interesting interpretative key to Vatican II, which confirms the influence of “democratic” thought at the Council. The great alibi of the Council was to present itself as a collegial and almost plebiscitary decision to introduce otherwise unacceptable changes. It was not in fact the specific content of the Acts nor their future significance in light of the spirit of the Council that cleared up heterodox doctrines that were already weaving their way through the ecclesial circles of northern Europe, but the charism of democracy, made almost unconsciously by the entire world episcopate, in the name of an ideological subjection that at the time saw many exponents of the hierarchy as almost subordinate to the mentality of the age. The idol of parliamentarianism that arose from the French Revolution – which showed itself to be so effective in subverting the social order – must have represented for some prelates an inevitable stage in the modernization of the Church, to be accepted in exchange for a sort of tolerance on the part of the contemporary world for what was still old and outmoded in what it persisted in proposing. This was a very serious mistake! This sense of inferiority on the part of the hierarchy, this feeling of backwardness and inadequacy to the demands of progress and ideologies, betrays a very deficient supernatural vision, and an even more deficient exercise of the theological virtues: it is the Church that ought to attract the world to itself and convert it and not vice-versa! The world must be converted to Christ and the Gospel, without Our Lord having to be presented as a revolutionary à la Che Guevara and the Church as a philanthropic organization more attentive to ecology than to the eternal salvation of souls.
De Souza affirms, contrary to what I have written, that I called Vatican II a “devilcouncil.” I would like to know where he found these words of mine reported. I assume that this expression is due to his erroneous and presumptuous translation of the term “conciliabolo”, according to its Latin etymology, which does not correspond to the current meaning in the Italian language. From this erroneous translation he infers that I have “a position contrary to the Catholic faith on the authority of ecumenical councils.” If he had taken the time to read my statements on this topic, he would have understood that precisely because I have the greatest veneration for the authority of the Ecumenical Councils and for the entire Magisterium in general, that I am not able to reconcile the most clear and orthodox teachings of all of the Councils up until Vatican I with the equivocal and at times even heterodox teachings of Vatican II. But I don’t seem to be the only one. Father Weinandy himself fails to reconcile the role of Vicar of Christ with Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is simultaneously both the holder and the demolisher of the papacy. But for De Souza and Weinandy, against all logic, one may criticize the Vicar of Christ but not the Council, or rather that Council and only that one. In fact, I have never encountered such solicitude in reiterating the canons of Vatican I when certain theologians speak of a “resizing of the papacy” or of a “synodal path;” nor have I ever found so many defenders of the authority of the Council of Trent when the very essence of the Catholic priesthood is denied.
De Souza thinks that, with my letter to Father Weinandy, I looked for an ally in him. Even if that was the case, I do not think that there would be anything wrong in that, as long as this alliance would have for its purpose the defense of Truth in the bond of Charity. But in reality, my intention was what I stated from the beginning, namely, to make a comparison possible from which we reach a greater understanding of the present crisis and its causes, in such a way that the Authority of the Church can pronounce on it in its time. I have never allowed myself to impose a definitive solution, nor to resolve questions that go beyond my role as Archbishop and are instead matters that are the direct competence of the Apostolic See. Thus, what Father De Souza says is not true, and even less that which Father Weinandy incomprehensibly attributes to me, that I find myself in the “unforgiveable sin against the Holy Spirit.” I could perhaps believe their good faith if they both applied the same severity of judgment to their common adversaries and to themselves, something that unfortunately does not seem to me will happen.
Father De Souza asks: “Schism. Heresy. Devil’s work. Unforgivable sin. How is it that such words are now being applied to Archbishop Viganò by respected and careful voices?” I think that the answer is obvious by now: a taboo has been broken, and a discussion about Vatican II, that up until now had remained confined to very restricted areas of the ecclesial body, has now begun on a large scale. And what most disturbs the supporters of the Council is the observation that this dispute is not about if the Council is open to criticism, but about what to do to remedy the errors and equivocal passages found in it. And this is an established fact, on which no work of delegitimization can now be undertaken: Magister also writes this at Settimo Cielo, referring to the “dispute that is inflaming the Church over how to judge Vatican II” and to the “controversies that periodically reopen in the various ‘Catholic’ media about the meaning of Vatican II and the link that exists between that Council and the present situation of the Church.” Making people believe that the Council is free from criticism is a falsification of reality, regardless of the intentions of those who criticize its ambiguity or heterodoxy.
Father De Souza further claims that Professor John Paul Meenan, on LifeSiteNews (here) supposedly demonstrated “the weaknesses in Archbishop Viganò’s argument and his theological mistakes.” I leave to Professor Meenan the burden of refuting my interventions on the basis of what I affirm, and not on what I do not say but that is deliberately misrepresented. Here, too, how much indulgence is shown to the Acts of the Council, and how much implacable severity to those who point out the gaps, to the point of insinuating the suspicion of Donatism.
As for the famous hermeneutic of continuity, it seems to me that it is clear that this is and remains an attempt – perhaps inspired by a somewhat Kantian vision of the affairs of the Church – to reconcile a precouncil and a postcouncil as had never before been necessary. The hermeneutic of continuity obviously is valid and to be followed within Catholic discourse: in theological language it is called the analogia fidei [analogy of faith] and it is one of the cornerstones to which the student of the sacred sciences must adhere. But applying this criterion to a hapax that, precisely based on its ambiguity, succeeded in saying or implying what it should have openly condemned does not make sense, because it presupposes as a postulate that there is a real coherence between the Magisterium of the Church and the “magisterium” contrary to it which is taught by the Pontifical Academies and Universities, by the episcopal and seminary chairs and preached from the pulpits. But while it is ontologically necessary that all Truth be consistent with itself, at the same time it is not possible to fail in the principle of non-contradiction, according to which two mutually exclusive propositions cannot both be true. Thus, there can be no “hermeneutic of continuity” in supporting the need of the Catholic Church for eternal salvation and at the same time what the Abu Dhabi declaration affirms, which is in continuity with the conciliar teaching. It is thus not true that I reject the hermeneutic in itself, but only when it cannot be applied to a clearly heterogeneous context. But if this observation of mine turns out to be unfounded, and if they want to demonstrate the gaps in it, I will be quite happy to repudiate them myself.
At the end of his article, Fr. De Souza asks provocatively: “Priest, curialist, diplomat, nuncio, administrator, reformer, whistleblower. Is it possible that, at the end of it all, heretic and schismatic would be added to that list?” I do not intend to respond to the insulting and gravely offensive expressions of Fr. Raymond KM, certainly not suited to a knight. I limit myself to asking him: To how many progressive Cardinals and Bishops would it be superfluous to ask the same question, already knowing that the answer is sadly positive? Perhaps, before assuming schisms and heresies where there are none, it would be appropriate and more useful to fight error and division where they have nested and spread for decades.
Dr. Maike Hickson, born and raised in Germany, studied History and French Literature at the University of Hannover and lived for several years in Switzerland, where she wrote her doctoral dissertation. She is married to Dr. Robert Hickson and they have been blessed with two beautiful children. She is a happy housewife who likes to write articles when time permits. Her work has appeared in American and European publications and websites such as LifeSiteNews, OnePeterFive, The Wanderer, Rorate Caeli, Catholicism.org, Catholic Family News, Christian Order, Notizie Pro-Vita, Corrispondenza Romana, Katholisches.info, Der Dreizehnte, Zeit-Fragen, and Westfalen-Blatt.
Prelates file legal brief to protect hospitals over patients
You are not signed in as a Premium user; we rely on Premium users to support our news reporting. Sign in or Sign up today!
FORT WORTH, Texas (ChurchMilitant.com) – Texas bishops are continuing to choose hospital rights over a patient’s right to life.
Tinslee Lewis
The Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops (TCCB) is appealing to the Texas Supreme Court to terminate treatment for 1-year-old Tinslee Lewis.
Texas’ highest civil court received the case last week when Cook Children’s Hospital (CCH) filed an appeal in its ongoing attempt to remove treatment. TCCB has supported treatment cut-off at every step.
In their appeal, CCH describes Lewis as a lifeless shell being kept alive artificially. A lower court rejected this argument in July when two doctors came forward to say the hospital had made an erroneous diagnosis, affirming that Lewis could receive non-extraordinary treatment.
When TCCB was informed that the hospital had misdiagnosed Lewis, that it was lying to the courts about Lewis’ condition, the communications consultant for the bishops’ conference replied that they “respectfully decline the opportunity to respond to your inquiry.”The bishops have doubled down to protect the Texas Advance Directives Act.Tweet
Instead of reconsidering their support of CCH on the Lewis case, the bishops have doubled down to protect the Texas Advance Directives Act (TADA) from being struck down, despite full knowledge their support will result in the death of a child who is being targeted under the law.
What is TADA?
TADA was enacted under Gov. George W. Bush as a means of facilitating dispute resolution for the contested decisions of treatment providers. Since that time, Texas Right to Life (TRTL), which originally was a partner in passing the law, has sought to improve upon the law through several legislative sessions. This has included passing legislation to ban the practice of denying food and water to patients.https://www.youtube.com/embed/-3DfabuVBBY
Another goal has been to remove the “10-Day Rule,” wherein, after a medical treatment provider’s ethics panel decides to withhold treatment, the grieving family has 10 days to find a hospital willing to accept transfer of the patient.
The biggest opponents to the passing of pro-life legislation have been the TCCB and Texas Alliance for Life (which critics have called a “faux-life” organization).
Tinslee’s Fight for Life
Lewis has beaten the odds since her birth. She was born with congenital heart disease and suffers from other ailments. CCH treated her for nine months before deciding they were no longer willing to do so. CCH claimed during an ethics panel inquiry that there was nothing that could be done for Lewis; subsequently, it told the courts treatment was not only futile but added to Lewis’ suffering.
Dr. Glenn Green and Dr. Patrick Roughneen
CCH’s testimony was disproved in July when two independent doctors, Glenn Green and Patrick Roughneen, evaluated Lewis and determined that the hospital had made an erroneous diagnosis, and many treatment options could be utilized if Lewis were taken off a ventilator and given a tracheostomy (trach) tube.
CCH had previously asked Lewis’ mother, Trinity, if she would be willing to allow a trach tube to be inserted. Trinity asked for time to research the procedure, but the next day, when she told the hospital she was willing to allow the procedure, CCH took the option off the table and left Lewis on the ventilator. She has remained on the ventilator for many months, notwithstanding the reigning medical consensus that holds that a patient should not remain on a ventilator longer than two weeks.
After Dr. Green and Dr. Roughneen determined Lewis could be treated, CCH decided it would allow the procedure, but only if Lewis’ mother agreed to first sign a do-not-resuscitate order. Lewis’ treatment has been postponed by further appeals in the courts and is now awaiting judgment by Texas’ highest court.
The TCCB has not replied to the latest query, as of the time of publication.
Edward The Captive Mind and America’s Resegregation
Idol smashing and cancel culture are part of a broad ideological project to dominate society.
By Andrew A. Michta,
Wall Street Journal, July 31, 2020
Czeslaw Milosz, a future Nobel Prize-winning poet who had just defected from Poland, began work in 1951 on a book called “The Captive Mind.” Even as Stalinist totalitarianism tightened its grip on Eastern Europe, many Western European intellectuals lauded the brave new world of Soviet communism as a model for overcoming “bourgeois forces,” which in their view had caused World War II.
Living in Paris, Milosz wrote his book, which was published in 1953, to warn the West of what happens to the human mind and soul in a totalitarian system.
Milosz knew from experience, having lived through the Communist takeover, how totalitarianism strips men and women of their liberty, transforming them into “affirmative cogs” in service of the state and obliterating what had taken centuries of Western political development to achieve.
Totalitarianism not only enslaved people physically but crippled their spirit. It did so by replacing ordinary human language, in which words signify things in the outside world, with ideologically sanctioned language, in which words signify the dominant party’s ever-changing ideas of what is and is not true.
Since the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, nationwide protests, which quickly turned to riots, have been hijacked by the neo-Marxist left, morphing into an all-out assault on American cities and institutions. This assault is underpinned by an audacious attempt to rewrite history that turns specific past events into weapons not only to overpower political opponents but also to recast all of American history as a litany of racial transgressions.
The radicals have turned race into a lens through which to view the country’s history, and not simply because they are obsessed with race. They have done so because it allows them to identify and separate those groups that deserve affirmation, in their view, and those that do not. What is taking place is the resegregation of America, the endpoint of which will be the rejection of everything the civil-rights movement stood for.
What is driving the radical protesters and rioters—who are enabled and manipulated by the “digital intelligentsia” in the press and an expanding segment of the political and business classes—is contempt for the freedom of anyone who fails to comport with their image of a just society.
In authoritarian systems those in power seek to proscribe certain forms of political speech and social activity. Totalitarians claim unconditional authority to reach deep into each person’s conscience. They prescribe an interpretation of the world and dictate the language with which citizens are permitted to express that interpretation.
Authoritarian regimes leave largely untouched the private civic sphere of human activity; totalitarians destroy traditional value systems and reorder the culture. That is why they are harder to overthrow. The ill-named progressivism that has inspired shrill demands to dismantle police forces and destroy statues is only a small manifestation of a massive project aimed at the re-education of the American population. The goal of this project is to negate the story of the American republic and replace it with a tale anchored exclusively in race categories and narratives of oppression. The nature of this exercise, with its sledgehammer rhetoric that obliterates complexities in favor of one-dimensional “correct” interpretations, is as close to Marxist agitprop as one can get.
Why do American elites, who might be expected to favor preserving the nation that has elevated them, support the effort to dismantle it? Their thinking seems to be that the radicals destroying monuments and issuing wholesale denunciations of America’s past are wreaking destruction on ordinary Americans and their history, not on the elites and their ideology.
Today’s elites as a rule do not believe they have any obligation to serve the public, only to rule it, and so they express little or no disapproval of college students toppling statues on federal land or looters raiding supermarkets. To criticize them would open elites to the charges of “populism” and “racism.” Yet the elites are playing a dangerous game. Such “canceling”—of historical and living figures alike—increasingly mirrors what happened under communism in the Soviet bloc, where the accusation of being out of step with the party was enough to end one’s career and nullify one’s reputation.
This is about more than statues and history. Those who control the symbols of political discourse can dominate the culture and control the collective consciousness. If you doubt this, ask yourself why there has been so little backlash from ordinary, nonelite Americans. Our sense of self has been progressively deconstructed. We feel in our bones the wrongness of the violence being visited on the nation but lack the language to speak against it.
The resegregation of American society is fundamentally undemocratic and un-American. It envisions a social hierarchy based on DNA. It is also incompatible with individual freedom and constitutional government. Hence the drive to overhaul the U.S. Constitution, rewrite textbooks, and restructure museums by race and sex quotas.
Democracy cannot survive in a society in which winners and losers are adjudicated arbitrarily according to criteria beyond individual control. Any society built around the principle of skin color will become a caste system in which accident, not merit, will allocate value and benefit. Civil society will be buried once and for all. The current radical trends carry the seeds of violence unseen in the U.S. since the Civil War. The activists ascendant in American cities insist on the dominance of their ideological precepts, brooking no alternative. Such absolutism forces Americans away from the realm of political compromise into one of unrelenting axiology, with one side claiming a monopoly on virtue and decency while the other is expected to accept its status as perpetually evil, and thus assume a permanent penitent stance for all its real and imagined misdeeds across history.
Only when the state creates a space for an unbiased debate over history can a discussion truly take place unhindered by ideology and dogma. Only then can a society move toward a consensus on a shared understanding of its past and how its collective memory should be shaped. The U.S. is roiled by spasms of violence and intolerance today because government at all levels—public education systems, states that allow universities to promulgate speech codes and “safe spaces,” court decisions that define constitutionally protected speech as, in effect, everything but political speech—has abdicated its duty to protect the public space.
Children are rampaging through the cities because the adults have left the room. America is in the throes of a destructive ideological experiment, subjected to a sweeping and increasingly state-sanctioned reordering of its collective memory, with the increasingly totalitarian left given free rein to dominate public discourse. Milosz, who died in 2004, would see an American mind bloated by a steady diet of identity politics and group grievance served up by ideologues in schools nationwide.
These ideologues have nearly succeeded in remaking our politics and culture; they are reinforced by a media in thrall to groupthink, by credentialed bureaucrats, and by politicians shaped in the monochrome factories of intellectual uniformity that are America’s institutions of higher learning. American society is faced with a stark binary choice. Either we push back against the unrelenting assault of the neo-Marxist narrative, or we yield to the totalitarian impulse now in full view in our politics.
It is no longer enough to wait for the next election, or to pin our hopes on a “silent majority” that will eventually stop the madness. There may be no such majority. If there is, its members may no longer be able to articulate what they see unfolding around them. It is hard to call things by their proper names in a society whose elites insist on calling looters and arsonists “protesters,” national monuments “symbols of racism,” and the victims of looting and arson the beneficiaries of “white privilege.” The challenge is massive, but it starts with the simple act of calling things by their proper names.
Mr. Michta is dean of the College of International and Security Studies at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on It is hard to call things by their proper names in a society whose elites insist on calling looters and arsonists “protesters,” national monuments “symbols of racism,” and the victims of looting and arson the beneficiaries of “white privilege.” The challenge is massive, but it starts with the simple act of calling things by their proper names.
Why are Democrats promoting Electile Dysfunction??
Universal voting by mail will have tragic consequences for our democracy.
By Pem Schaeffer
September 1, 2020
Opening Premise:Every citizen who meets statutory qualifications has the right to vote, and to have their ballot counted. Just as importantly, each voter has the right to not have their vote canceled by an illegitimate ballot, and all citizens have the right to expect that elections are decided only by legitimate voters and votes.
There’s great insistence on one side of the political divide for “voting by mail” in the upcoming Presidential Election, which will include voting for thousands of state and local officials as well, all as part of the same election. If you’re going to hold traditional elections for everything but President, why bother with the mail at all? On the other hand, if you’re going to elect the President by mail, why bother conducting traditional elections for the rest? It should be all or nothing; anything else needlessly and pointlessly complicates and jeopardizes the sanctity of the election process.
Election conduct is the responsibility of the several states, and here in Maine, the Secretary of State, chosen by the Legislature, is responsible for enforcing State election law, and delegates responsibility for election conduct to individual municipalities. Each of these typically employ a Town Clerk to oversee the Election, and they often serve as registrar of voters as well. This includes voter registration, maintenance of voting rolls, and implementation of the actual voting process, including managing polling locations and Absentee Voting.
Our election conduct overall suffers from a number of systemic vulnerabilities, even without considering the proposed “vote by mail” methodology.
Voter registration and voter roll maintenance are notoriously inaccurate, out of date, and susceptible to compromise.
No uniform process for state or national level reconciliation of municipal voter rolls.> Students/party members/other non-officials permitted to conduct registration drives and submit unverified registration cards for voter roll inclusion.> Deaths, moves, and other vital information changes are not systematically incorporated in rolls.> Not all those qualified to vote register, and many who are registered do not know where they are registered.> College students come and go; register locally, but are not systematically removed upon departure. They can easily be double registered in their domicile of permanent residence.> Cognizant officials tend towards gracious lenience in applying registration law. Election conduct at the local precinct level is similarly susceptible to compromise. > Local poll workers are paid volunteers and usually kindly, welcoming seniors who are, at the very least, lenient in enforcing legal protocols. They believe it is wrong to limit who can vote. They see their involvement largely as a social event renewing old acquaintances and welcoming new ones.> No formal picture ID required or accepted.> Election day voting at official polls does allow, however, for enforcement of two typical provisions of election law: preventing electioneering at the polling locations, and allowing voter challenges by approved members of the public. Voting by mail would preclude both of these vital safeguards of election integrity. Traditional Absentee/Early Voting is reasonably well controlled. > Formal process for early voting; in my town, voting is conducted in Town Clerk’s Office; official verifies registration and identity before handing over ballot, which must be submitted at the same office visit.> Requesting Absentee Ballot requires formal mail in application, or speaking in person with Town Clerk personnel who verify identity and registration status. Ballot must be return mailed by established deadline prior to election day. Ballot Complications in Presidential/General Elections. > Each resident voter receives a combination of ballots based on their exact address and the municipal, state legislative, and federal congressional districts in which they live. My town has 7 town council districts which overlay 3 state representative districts. This clearly complicates the unique ballot combinations that must be provided to registered voters.> This complicates absentee voting and early voting, as well as real time voting on election day at the polls.> Imagine the complications for mailing out ballot packets to ALL registered voters, and the variety of errors than can occur. This represents an enormous challenge, for which municipal staff is not equipped or experienced. The reverse is true for dealing with these thousands and thousands of ballots received by mail, and maintaining order, discipline, and accuracy in doing so. I can imagine supporters of vote by mail saying that if there are all these complications associated with voting on state and local offices, and even for Members of Congress at the Federal level, than the vote by mail should be for President only. What good would that do? If voters still have to follow the long established procedures for every other office up for a vote, why can’t they do the same for the Office of President?? Just how badly do they want to burden local election officials? Why would we want two separate and distinct methodologies for the voting itself and the subsequent counting process? Ballot Chain of Custody is Vital to Election Integrity. Two other material issues argue against voting by mail. First is the sanctity of “chain of custody” that must be preserved if elections are to accurately reflect the will of the people. There are challenges enough in the existing system. If instead universal voting by mail is used, guaranteeing “chain of custody” for ballots will be impossible, and dangerously so. Ballots mailers will be assembled and then turned over to the USPS, where all the unknowns of the Postal Delivery System will come into play. Lost mailers, mis-delivered mailers, stolen mailers, fraudulently created and delivered mailers, unknown credentials of voters of returned ballots, and more similar pitfalls than you can possible imagine. In other words, chaos. Have you ever seen the nightmare of mailboxes in Rural Free Delivery areas, and on the other hand, in compact urban areas? There is no dependable, consistent way of ensuring anything even remotely close to a trustworthy chain of custody. Secret Ballots Are Fundamental to Election Conduct in Our Democracy. Now, one more thing. One side of the political spectrum likes to claim that all claims of election fraud are bogus. Their proof is that there are only a minuscule amount of ballot fraud charges that have actually been proven in court. There’s a simple reason for this. Fundamental to the American system of elections is the concept of secret ballots. The ballots you receive do not include any provision for you to indicate your name and address, and intentionally so. So once the ballot(s) are turned in, whether in person at the polls, by early voting, by absentee voting, or in the proposed “vote by mail” methodology, the ballots have no identity of record. If clear evidence of major foul-ups of ballot distribution, voting, and submission were uncovered, there would be no way to correct the initial vote tallies to mitigate the fraud. The deed would be done, and that would be the end of it. Other ConsiderationsAll this, and we haven’t even mentioned or discussed the handling of ballots for those who are out of town when ballots arrive and/or are due to be returned, whether for a short period, or an extended period. They could be on extended travel, education overseas, military service; undergoing long term health care; or numerous other reasons. Normally, we would expect such individuals to mind their own best interests and apply for an Absentee Ballot using established procedures. But under universal Voting by Mail, ballots would be prepared and eventually mailed out to every registered party at their address of record. This alone opens up major opportunities for fraud, errors in the chain of custody whether intentional or not, and who knows how many other modes of ballot and election compromise. Process Flow for Universal Voting by Mail Shown below are the individual steps from inception to conclusion of the general election process that come to mind if it is totally conducted by mail. Readers will likely think of steps we forgot. Note that each step in the process involves a gap and transition in custody, and as such, is a vulnerability in the integrity of the process. Compare this sequence to in person voting at designated polling locations. (USPS participates in italicized steps)> Ballot configuration/content/design > Ballot production and delivery to Registrars/Election Officials> Voter packet configuration/assembly◦ Bewildering number of ballot combinations based on EXACT address> Mailing of packets> Processing/sorting of packets> Delivery of packets to everyday mailboxes> Addressee pick-up of packets> Addressee voting & preparation of return packet◦ Note that electioneering cannot be prevented with voting by mail, and that the poll-watchers prescribed in election law are similarly irrelevant.> Addressee mailing of return packet> Processing/sorting of packets> Delivery of packets to election officials> Opening/sorting/validation of packets> Counting of received ballots> Submission of counts to sequence of higher authorities at State and National levels> Storage/archiving of evidentiary materials◦ Ballots, tally sheets, computer files, personnel lists, etc Closing Premise: Murphy’s Laws of Election Conduct apply most fully to “voting by mail.” > If there’s a 50% chance that something will go wrong, 9 out of 10 times it will. > If there are vulnerabilities in the system that can be taken advantage of by mischievous behavior, those intent on rigging the election will do just that.> Nothing mobilizes armies of lawyers more than the lust for political power. Conclusion: The opportunities, possibilities, and modalities for election mischief, racketeering, and downright criminal conspiracy are unimaginable and limitless. Deciding that we will sign up for this as the new “fair, just, and socially correct” way of conducting elections will be tantamount to destroying whatever election integrity we once had and trusted. Those who demand universal “voting by mail” want widespread misconduct and their own lawyers to determine election outcomes instead of legitimate voters. If Democrats insist on and gain approval of Universal Voting by Mail, Electile Dysfunction is surely what they will reap, with consequent tragic circumstances for our democratic processes. Email Link https://conta.cc/3jIBYqH
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on YOU ARE SURELY SMART ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THIS
Here is the Excerpt from the Letter of Archbishop Viganò, you decide:
The Church of Christ – which not only subsists in the Catholic Church, but is exclusively the Catholic Church – is only obscured and eclipsed by a strange extravagant Church established in Rome, according to the vision of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich.
It coexists, like wheat with the tare, in the Roman Curia, in dioceses, in parishes. We cannot judge our pastors for their intentions, nor suppose that all of them are corrupt in faith and morals; on the contrary, we can hope that many of them, hitherto intimidated and silent, will understand, as confusion and apostasy continue to spread, the deception to which they have been subjected and will finally shake off their slumber.
There are many laity who are raising their voice; others will necessarily follow, together with good priests, certainly present in every diocese. This awakening of the Church militant – I would dare to call it almost a resurrection– is necessary, urgent and inevitable: no son tolerates his mother being outraged by the servants, or his father being tyrannized by the administrators of his goods.
The Lord offers us, in these painful situations, the possibility of being His allies in fighting this holy battle under His banner: the King Who is victorious over error and death permits us to share the honor of triumphal victory and the eternal reward that derives from it, after having endured and suffered with Him.
But in order to deserve the immortal glory of Heaven we are called to rediscover – in an emasculated age devoid of values such as honor, faithfulness to one’s word, and heroism – a fundamental aspect of the faith of every baptized person: the Christian life is a militia, and with the Sacrament of Confirmation we are called to be soldiers of Christ, under whose insignia we must fight.
Of course, in most cases it is essentially a spiritual battle, but over the course of history we have seen how often, faced with the violation of the sovereign rights of God and the liberty of the Church, it was also necessary to take up arms: we are taught this by the strenuous resistance to repel the Islamic invasions in Lepanto and on the outskirts of Vienna, the persecution of the Cristeros in Mexico, of the Catholics in Spain, and even today by the cruel war against Christians throughout the world.
Never as today can we understand the theological hatred coming from the enemies of God, inspired by Satan. The attack on everything that recalls the Cross of Christ – on Virtue, on the Good and the Beautiful, on purity – must spur us to get up, in a leap of pride, in order to claim our right not only not to be persecuted by our external enemies but also and above all to have strong and courageous pastors, holy and God-fearing, who will do exactly what their predecessors have done for centuries: preach the Gospel of Christ, convert individuals and nations, and expand the Kingdom of the living and true God throughout the world.
One of the great grifter movies, aside from the Clinton and Obama presidencies, is The Sting. Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman) and Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford} team up, “to pull off a complicated scheme known simple as the Big Con,” a racket to crush Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw) and his empire. We have had several iterations of the Big Con over the past four years, with Gondorff and Hooker played by a rotating cast including James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, Joe Biden, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. All schemed and conspired to destroy Donald Trump and his family and presidency.
The latest sequel features Drs. Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx as the grifters and swindlers, using the Chinese coronavirus as the Big Con to keep President Trump from winning a second term in the White House. In the movie, the con succeeded but in Washington D.C., the con-verse is happening, with the schemes blowing up in the faces of the deep state grifters.
In the past week, two pillars of the COVID Con collapsed: deaths and positive tests. Back in April, the news was all about death counts. Fox News ran a death tally on the screen, much like the running score of football game. Cable news shows talked about nothing but rising death counts, spreading fear porn to justify recommendations for staying at home and shutting down the U.S. economy.
The first crack in the pillar occurred in early May when task force member Dr. Birx claimed, “There is nothing from the CDC that I can trust.” She believed the CDC was inflating Wuhan flu mortality by as much as 25 percent.
The pillar of COVID deaths crumbled just days ago when the CDC updated their mortality numbers to reflect deaths “from COVID” versus deaths “with COVID.” Death with COVID means that George Floyd is counted a COVID death because he tested positive at autopsy. This is similar to the case of a Colorado man dying of alcohol poisoning but the death was later blamed on COVID. Washington public officials counted gunshot fatalities as COVID deaths.
The new CDC statistics show that only 6,640 deaths are due to COVID alone, rather than the commonly reported 164,280 deaths allegedly associated with COVID. In other words, only 4 percent of media sensationalized deaths were due solely to COVID and not other underlying medical conditions.
Could COVID have been a contributory factor? Sure, but what about the underlying comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, even terminal cancer, all of which significantly increased the risk of death from COVID or even the seasonal flu. The CDC summarized it succinctly, “For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned.”
What this means is that those at lower risk, younger and healthier, are extremely unlikely to die from the Chinese flu, and shutting down the economy to protect the healthy makes little sense, unless economic destruction is the ultimate goal.
Not surprisingly, this revision received little attention in the DNC media, covered only by conservative news sites like Gateway Pundit. Not only ignored, but the truth was suppressed with Twitter blaming the updated CDC numbers on QAnon and removing tweets discussing the new data.
It seems the left wants QAnon to be the new “vast right-wing conspiracy” that Hillary Clinton once blamed for reports that her husband was having sex with a young White House intern. Yet the CDC numbers are on their website and the blue dress spoke for itself.
As death counts became suspect and testing ramped up, the media did a smooth sashay to case counts, or positive tests. Death counts and hospitalizations were flat, suggesting herd immunity was present in many parts of the country. To justify keeping businesses, churches, and schools closed, the DNC media now focused on positive tests.
A positive test means simply that there are viral particles in a person’s respiratory tract. They have been infected months ago and the sensitive PCR test detected dead viral fragments. A positive test does not mean a person is sick or contagious. And more testing means more positive cases, leading to so-called “surges” that were anything but.
Days ago, in of all places, the New York Times, the second pillar of the COVID Con crumbled, as they reported,
The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.
Most of these people are not likely to be contagious and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those who are contagious from being found in time.
Sensitivity of the PCR tests has to do with amplification of genetic material from the virus. The fewer cycles required, the higher the viral load and greater likelihood of being contagious. By setting the threshold of amplification cycles too high, the test is overly sensitive.
Imagine a home security alarm so sensitive that it is triggered by a wind gust or leaf hitting a window. The homeowner will certainly be alerted if an intruder is attempting to break in, but the alarm will be going off constantly with false, or in the case of the virus, non-clinically significant positives. Or as the NY Times put it,Tests with thresholds so high may detect not just live virus but also genetic fragments, leftovers from infection that pose no particular risk — akin to finding a hair in a room long after a person has left.
33 amplification cycles may be the upper limit for detecting live virus, according to the CDC, but many commercial labs are using 40 cycles as a positive test, in essence sounding the burglar alarm when a bird lands on the back deck.
The NY Times found, “Up to 90 percent of people testing positive carried barely any virus.” Yet lockdowns of businesses and schools continue based on these wildly inaccurate numbers.
Is this purposeful or incompetent? I suggest the former. President Trump downplayed testing in favor of therapeutics such as hydroxychloroquine. The Democrat-media establishment immediately pushed for more testing and told everyone that hydroxy was as deadly as cyanide.
Fox News crank Neil Cavuto said of hydroxy, “It will kill you.” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, claiming an “evidence-based” approach to combating the Chinese flu, pushed for “testing, testing, testing.” Yet both of those admonitions were fear-based, not evidence-based.
Here we are now with deaths and positive cases overstated by 90 plus percent, all to create fear and uncertainty ahead of a presidential election. How many excess deaths can be attributed to media gaslighting? How many people delayed necessary medical care or cancer screening, afraid to leave their homes over the daily barrage of fear porn from CNN and Fox News?
This is information warfare, weaponizing medical data to influence an election, regardless of the cost in lives and economic damage. But the Big Con is being exposed, darkness to light. Hopefully voters are noticing and awakening to the con pushed by the left and the media.
Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a Denver-based physician and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in American Thinker, Daily Caller, Rasmussen Reports, and other publications
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on The American public has been since the first of the year the victim of information warfare, weaponizing medical data to influence an election, regardless of the cost in lives and economic damage. But the Big Con is being exposed, darkness to light. Hopefully voters are noticing and awakening to the con pushed by the left and the media. Wake up America before the election in November. You are being played for a sucker by the Left.
It’s been a busy few days, so you might’ve missed the disturbing story out of Georgia last week that a middle-aged black man was stabbed multiple times in the neck and torso by a young white man in an AutoZone store. The assailant reportedly smiled when he told police that he “felt the need to find a black male to kill.”
Early last month in Colorado, there was an even more awful incident of racial violence. A 21-year-old white man from Aurora was driving down a suburban street when he began following a trio of 11- and 12-year-old black boys walking home from school. The man then hit the gas, jumped the curb, and mowed down two of the three boys.
Given the racially charged tensions of the day, it’s hard to believe these stories haven’t received more attention. Or maybe it’s not hard to believe at all. Because the victims in thesetwo cases were actually white, and the assailants were black.
But does anyone doubt that had the races been reversed, these terrible stories would’ve been more extensively covered by the mainstream media? If you doubt this, think back a month ago to the execution-style slaying of five-year-old Cannon Hinnant, who was out riding his bike in front of his house when he was shot point-blank in the head by a neighbor, a 25-year-old black man named Darius Sessoms.
Perhaps there’s a shrine somewhere commemorating the too-short life of young Cannon, but perhaps not. Either way, we certainly won’t see the protests, the looting, the arson, and the nationwide violence we’ve seen in response to the death of 46-year-old career criminal George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police.
Why not?
The answer might be, at least in part, that black-on-white crime is so commonplace as to not be newsworthy. Of course, it might also be that reporting on black-on-white crime discomforts our mainstream media and distracts from its narrative of the U.S. as an irredeemably racist nation shot through with white supremacy.
Our Mark Alexander picked up on this blame-shifting charade recently, and he cited some compelling statistics from researcher and author Heather Mac Donald regarding the interracial crime disparity. Such as: “There were 593,598 interracial violent victimizations … between blacks and whites [in 2018], including white-on-black and black-on-white attacks. Blacks committed 537,204 of those interracial felonies, or 90 percent, and whites committed 56,394 of them, or less than 10 percent.”
Mac Donald goes on to note that blacks represent just 13% of the U.S. population, and yet they commit 90% of our nation’s violent crime. She adds that this ratio is becoming even more skewed despite the Left’s continuous claims of Trump-inspired white violence. “Blacks,” she writes, “are also over-represented among perpetrators of hate crimes — by 50 percent — according to the most recent Justice Department data from 2017.”
When was the last time you read crime statistics like these in The New York Times or The Washington Post, or heard them discussed on NPR, or saw them displayed on CNN or CBS or NBC or ABC or PBS?If racism in America is indeed worthy of our discussion, then by all means let’s have a discussion. But let’s be sure to have a thorough discussion, a legitimate discussion, an honest discussion — rather than a politically correct one that avoids these inconvenient and troubling truths.
momofpoms says:September 4, 2020 at 10:47 amThere are consequences to the choices we make.God makes this clear.
SanJac says:September 4, 2020 at 11:06 amHe and those like him who step into insanity will never be reformed and there are limited paths to deal with them all.Liked by 6 peopleReply
MVW says:September 4, 2020 at 10:51 amLooks like Antifa is composed of 2 types, the rich entitled Liberal Arts Fools that wanna be ‘revolutionaries’ and the hardened criminals that have been ‘given’ the right to kill, loot, maim, rape and rampage.This is one of the latter.Liked by 12 peopleReply
VVV VVV says:September 4, 2020 at 11:08 am“…given the right to…” No, paid. It’s their job.Liked by 2 peopleReply
Mr e-man says:September 4, 2020 at 11:56 amOr he could be a useful fool for the leaders. They find people who they trick into the dirty work while the leaders hide behind them. This guy doesn’t appear to be too bright.Liked by 3 peopleReply
Rachel Guess says:September 4, 2020 at 12:28 pmMr e-man, not too bright is beyond an understatement. This imbecile took his 11 year old daughter to the portland riots, including having her carry a baseball bat around with her. I always feel sad for children that grow up without a parent, but in this particular case I think it is for the best and hope that someone will step up to the plate to provide the guidance they will need in their teen years, correcting any malignancy/hatred reinoehl managed to encourage in his kids.Liked by 1 personReply
Lady Sid says:September 4, 2020 at 12:38 pmHeard on Red-eye Radio program during the night that Reinhoehl had been stopped some time ago by police on the interstate clocked at 111 mph and driving under the influence of marijuana. His 17 yo son was in the car, too. Until pandemic hit, I didn’t realize what terrible shape whole hunks of our country are in! Adults not adulting is a serious problem.Liked by 1 personReply
Dwayne Diesel says:September 4, 2020 at 1:00 pmThere are a whole bunch like Reinhoehl out there. But, as we all know, the MSM only likes to focus on one demographic….I know I grew up with a POS drug-addicted alcoholic abusive mom. I just want to know what’s being done to arrest his assassination partners? I assume most on here saw the entire video like I did- where it shows Reinhoehl setting up with the BLM group. Then the cameraman narrates, with a focus on the in some cases well-done graffiti, as he walks down the street…The black car revs its engine and the cameraman gives it all away- I’m nervous that’s the signal. Then you see the black car pull up- where are they? There? Them? pow pow….and his clean up team swings into action cleaning up brass and pretending to render services to the deceased until the whole assassin squad disappears.Should of kept his butt alive to get the rest. Although, they should be able to find the originator of that video.LikeReply
Tl Howard says:September 4, 2020 at 1:08 pmI don’t know about *this* guy, but a lot of people who are drawn to such activities are people who belong in mental institutions, just like some of the people who have shot up scores of people in schools and elsewhere.LikeReply
Art of War! PDJT style! says:September 4, 2020 at 10:54 am‘Bout damn time. Saves a few bucks on an injection, electricity or rope. Take your choice.Liked by 3 peopleReply
Deplorable_Vespucciland says:September 4, 2020 at 10:56 amAntifaGoons open carrying is nothing new. Always suspected that the blacbloc brigade with their AKs were not the only armed commies in the streets, just the obvious ones. You can see here at about the 3-minute mark four of them with facemasks standing on a street corner. https://www.youtube.com/embed/jD2TrqmhoO4?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparentThis was about three years ago in Austin,TX. Notice the red & yellow hammer & sickle Antifa flags, also the horseback mounted unit in the street. If not for the many riot police separating the patriots from the homegrown terrorists there would have been bloodshed that day.Liked by 1 personReply
More Bore says:September 4, 2020 at 11:26 amEven with a few of them armed, they almost certainly do not know what to do with themselves or their gear if it came to that.Liked by 1 personReply
daylight58 says:September 4, 2020 at 11:46 amI still recall Zombietime’s “inside the Fremont Street” photos with ChiCom-gear-wearing protestors, and the Asian-heritage woman getting them worked-up.We let too many sleeper commies into the U.S. during the 90’s and ‘aughts’.Liked by 1 personReply
nckhawk says:September 4, 2020 at 10:56 amDamn – it was a good old fashioned western shoot out. How did he get a legal semi-automatic rifle with that kind of criminal record in the land of gun control?Liked by 7 peopleReply
Amy2 says:September 4, 2020 at 11:00 amYou meant his “assault rifle” right? (That term always cracks me up..)Liked by 2 peopleReply
donnyvee says:September 4, 2020 at 11:00 amWill there be a BLM decal on his coffin to match the one on his neck?LikeReply
konradwp1 says:September 4, 2020 at 11:27 amYou may laugh about the coffin. But if you are a US taxpayer you will be paying for that sorry cardboard crate with the plastic handles they roll into the furnace.You will also be paying for his daughter’s upkeep. (Although with her murderous father out of the way, there is hope for return on that expense).Liked by 2 peopleReply
Raised on Reagan says:September 4, 2020 at 11:43 amLet’s hope his daughter is granted custody to his sister. She has her head on straight and did a fine thing turning him in.Liked by 1 personReply
63gordfa says:September 4, 2020 at 12:49 pmHas his daughter turned in her baseball bat?LikeReply
Davey says:September 4, 2020 at 12:59 pmWill he get a “cross-country funeral service”, like other leftist heroes?LikeReply
Trygve says:September 4, 2020 at 11:04 amI bet the @shipwreckedcrew is infuriated by this.Liked by 1 personReply
John Davis says:September 4, 2020 at 11:09 amAnother COVID 19 stat?LikeReply
Reaganite says:September 4, 2020 at 11:09 amPlease forgive this off topic somewhat related
chuckyschmucky says:September 4, 2020 at 11:19 amRest in pieces, terrorist garbage.Liked by 1 personReply
northwoodswatcher says:September 4, 2020 at 11:27 amYes!LikeReply
fionnagh says:September 4, 2020 at 11:27 amJustice, but no peace.LikeReply
Screaming Eagle says:September 4, 2020 at 11:30 am50 gunshots fired ?…..that’s sounds excessive……….Clearly, 49 would have done the job.
uncreativ says:September 4, 2020 at 11:45 amThe story reports the information about shootings by suggesting the 40-50 shots happened before police responded. Either that was sloppy reporting, or there were others involved in shooting at the cops. Did this guy really get 50 shots off, and then the police responded?LikeReply
Maquis says:September 4, 2020 at 11:45 amIt appears a significant portion of those shots were fired by the decedent.Liked by 1 personReply
Guyski says:September 4, 2020 at 11:31 amTo all those whitey BLM protestors. Just remember at the end of the day (or your life) you are still white and you ain’t gonna get a big send off.
Liked by 1 personReplySMP Belltown says:September 4, 2020 at 11:32 amI wonder how many body cams were in operation by the members of various law enforcement agencies during this apprehension? Also, how many security cams might have captured the timing of the tragic events…. If there was plenty of coverage, it should decrease the legendary martyr value of the event. If any body cams on the 4+ officers involved were conveniently “off”, then fiscal and operational heads should probably roll at several departments.Liked by 2 peopleReply
Janeka says:September 4, 2020 at 11:36 amToo bad so sad… what’s for lunchLiked by 1 personReply
BigDeeTX says:September 4, 2020 at 11:40 amIf Michael Reinoehl had been black, they would have rioted for his death, too.Liked by 1 personReply
TMonroe says:September 4, 2020 at 11:57 amIf Joe had a son not being paid by Burisma…LikeReply
kleen says:September 4, 2020 at 12:37 pmI think the leaders received some tips from their masters(Demoncraps officials) that they are being investigated and to be careful.They have been quiet. 2 nights ago another thug was rightfully killed by cops and no riots. They had an agitated gathering but that was it. Money has dried out to the terrorists, no more buses to the next riot destination.
billrla says:September 4, 2020 at 12:57 pmKleen: Agree. FedGov mop-up operation.LikeReply
nichan says:September 4, 2020 at 12:57 pmYou think so? Who supplies meth and provide shelter claimed to be for the homeless to these nightly predators? https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=thelastrefuge2&dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1301504469373456386&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2F2020%2F09%2F04%2Fantifa-activist-suspected-of-murder-killed-during-shoot-out-with-task-force-attempting-arrest%2F&siteScreenName=thelastrefuge2&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550pxAntifaHQ of Portland has been located funded by C3PO and other groupshttps://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=thelastrefuge2&dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-2&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1301705315428323330&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftheconservativetreehouse.com%2F2020%2F09%2F04%2Fantifa-activist-suspected-of-murder-killed-during-shoot-out-with-task-force-attempting-arrest%2F&siteScreenName=thelastrefuge2&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550pxThe fabled #AntifaHQ of Portland has been located. The war encampment that
revarmegeddontthunderbird says:September 4, 2020 at 11:44 amBreaking news….Flags at all state buildings in Oregon and Washington will be flown at half mast in honor of the meth head fascist ANTIFA murder. Then the state legislatures will debate naming a holiday after him.Liked by 1 personReply
Ackman419 says:September 4, 2020 at 1:03 pmPlus, nearly all of them were White. Except for their slaves, if any.LikeReply
MJJ says:September 4, 2020 at 11:56 amUnfortunately, Antifa Activist Michael Reinoehl chose to think he was Above the Law and instead of turning himself to defend his views and reasons for killing chose to choose more killing, it is sad to see such misguided mindless actions when in America there are so many more ways to try and change others minds without lost of life. More could have exchanged views than the need to shoot bullets at each other.LikeReply
Child of Morning says:September 4, 2020 at 12:09 pmThere were others, pointing out targets for scumbag Reinoehl. These folks need the dirt nap too. I hope Law Enforcement is looking into these BLM animals. I have strong doubts. Better would be that the street knows who these targets are.LikeReply
T2020 says:September 4, 2020 at 11:57 amI mentioned to someone the other day who was frustrated that there had been no arrest. All I said was, “We’ll see that happens.”LikeReply
teabag14 says:September 4, 2020 at 11:59 amSomeone else may have pointed this out: where I come from it’s called ‘suicide by cop’. Probably hoped his brethren would riot for him. Maybe they will. Gave his life for the cause. Sucker.
LikeReplyBrant says:September 4, 2020 at 12:08 pmAs Patton/George C Scott said, make the other guy give his life for his cause.Liked by 1 personReply
CNN_sucks says:September 4, 2020 at 12:00 pmBLM/Antifa never make a hero out of whitey, ok. So, whose next?LikeReply
Pew-Anon says:September 4, 2020 at 12:44 pmThey’ll do whatever advances their agenda, regardless of the contradiction.LikeReply
4EDouglas says:September 4, 2020 at 12:02 pmTake note: US Marshals-not FBI. Also the Fed have Deputized Oregon State Police as US Marshals.
LBB says:September 4, 2020 at 12:58 pmSome were deputized earlier in summer. Lasts 1 yr.
lackawaxen123 says:September 4, 2020 at 12:10 pmAntifa Activist Killed During Shoot-Out With Task Force Attempting Arrest…I hope we see dozens of these headlines over the next month or 2 …LikeReply
bruzedorange says:September 4, 2020 at 12:31 pmOr will we actually be seeing
California Joe says:September 4, 2020 at 12:12 pmObviously, these middle-aged White criminals are being paid handsomely otherwise they wouldn’t be rioting for Black Lives or anybody else’s life! The FBI is being run by idiots!Liked by 2 peopleReply
furtive says:September 4, 2020 at 12:23 pmIn the photo:above, he brought his young daughter. He wanted her to witness the “Revolution ” ….LikeReply
Sporty says:September 4, 2020 at 12:35 pmWhy isn’t Soros neutralized since he’s behind most of our troubles?Liked by 2 peopleReply
Walt says:September 4, 2020 at 12:51 pmI’m curious about the western countries that went down the gun confiscation rabbit hole (Britain, Australia, NZ and Canada).
MIKE says:September 4, 2020 at 12:53 pmNear the end of his show, Chris Plante was saying that reports have come out that Mr. Neck-tatt may have shot himself. Dunno, but the world is a little happier today, regardless.LikeReply
MustangBlues says:September 4, 2020 at 12:58 pmWhere are the videos??? Every scene with rioters in it, there are hundreds of camera video out immediately; the police did not have body cams??? And the news report of ”witnesses” ( you know the kind, the ones that said brown had his hands up when shot by wilson in Ferguson), said 50 shots were fired and then the police fired back??!! Sounds not likely a numerate person giving that assessment.LikeReply
namberak says:September 4, 2020 at 12:59 pmI just had the terribly cynical thought that if this dead piece of garbage were black, er, Black, the mob would no doubt finish burning down Seattle and throw in Olympia as a bonus.Liked by 1 personReply
minnesotamike55 says:September 4, 2020 at 1:02 pmAnybody that wears a clown outfit like he did should be looked upon with much suspicion. Turns out he, like probably most of these rioters, was a scumbag thug. Buh bye.As to his comments “I had no choice, I had to do it” that is too commonly part of the liberal mindset. “A policeman standing on a corner made me loot”, “A federal building in the middle of liberal utopia made me start it on fire”, “Trump saying hydroxy has some benefit made me not give it to my patients”, “Prosperous well educated white people with good jobs left me no choice but to shoplift”, and on it goes. The left gives Trump and others incredible power that makes them do things they can’t control. If true, then all Trump has to say is “stop the violence,vote for me” and he wins. No, the left has many choices if they don’t like something, unfortunately they choose a path that is hateful and harmful to most of America. They really have no logical thought process when it comes to problem solving. What did they do immediately after learning Trump won? They screamed at the sky like little children! Someone should do a campaign video with democrats saying “we will fix this problem by (screaming at sky), we will do better by (screaming at sky), we care about you and will(scream at the sky), and on and on.LikeReply
jnr2d2 says:September 4, 2020 at 1:07 pmIs his name pronounced RYNOLikeReply
jumpinjarhead says:September 4, 2020 at 1:08 pmIt was about time! He used his freedom to spout more propaganda and try to justify his murder of an evil Prayer Patriot (that our enemies make a point to label an “extreme right wing” group (no doubt because their marxist “Southern Poverty Law Center” says it is.).We need to note the difference between this terrorist and what Antifa used to be 4 years ago. This murderer was almost 50 years old, an Army vet who was obviously unhinged (previously arrested for being high on drugs, carrying a gun -and drag racing against his teenage son over 110 mph while his 11 y/o daughter was in the car with him. Thereafter he was arrested and let go with no charges (in spite of his pending trial for the previous drag racing crimes) after being caught with a gun at a prior “peacedsful demonstration.”According to reports, he was killed after he fired 30-40 rounds from an “assault rifle” at federal officers.This is more the kind of terrorist we need to be thinking of (and preparing for).LikeReply
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.