Each generation deals with its own manifestations of age-old mob frenzies, bullying and public shaming. Salem, Mass., had its witch trials in the 1690s. The 1950s endured its McCarthyism. And we now are enduring our “cancel culture.”
But 21st-century public shaming reaches not thousands but tens of millions. And it does so instantaneously on the internet and on social media — too often, all under the cloak of masked Twitter handles.
Our generation’s bane is a many-headed hydra of doxing, revenge porn and canceling out the careers of public figures. Smears are predicated on the assumption that those targeted will panic; they will apologize and seek penance, reducing themselves to timid careerists and fawning toadies. The aim is electronic Trotskyization — making one disappear from computer screens as if they had never existed.
Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson is now the mob’s latest target. His sin?
In our times of urban riot, arson, looting and violence, Carlson noted that Kenosha, Wis., had “devolved into anarchy because the authorities in charge of the city abandoned it. People in charge, from the governor of Wisconsin on down, refused to enforce the law.”
That was a factual statement. It was not just his own personal observation. Carlson’s point was borne out both by the furor of the anti-police protesters who quickly screamed for help when hurt, and by those who took up arms to protect stores when no police were to be found.
But what put Carlson’s neck in the mob’s noose was his further observation about the police: “They stood back and they watched Kenosha burn. So are we really surprised that looting and arson accelerated to murder? How shocked are we that 17-year-olds with rifles decided they had to maintain order when no one else would?”
Note that Carlson was simply repeating an age-old adage that when the police do not hold a monopoly on the use of force, others less t
Again, Carlson’s point was not to condone the 17-year-old shooter — a criminal court will adjudicate his innocence or guilt. Carlson simply noted that both the teenager and those he shot are the tragic results when supposed adults in the room — governors, mayors, district attorneys, police chiefs — fail to guarantee the civic rights and tranquility of American citizens. Does anyone watching the last three “summer of love” months believe authorities have protected small businesses and kept the calm in Portland, Seattle, Chicago or Kenosha? Almost immediately the Twitter global throng mobilized to equate Carlson with the shooter himself, to render Carlson not just untenable as a news anchor but toxic to his advertisers. Or, as a former Obama official tweeted, “Tucker straight up endorsing vigilante murder on the show tonight. What advertisers are still ok with this?”
Note how the pack has not only tried and convicted Carlson as an abettor to murder. The horde also has prejudged the shooter as a murderer — before a court has even heard evidence of whether he was attacked and, in panic, shot in self-defense, or instead gratuitously killed without need.
How ironic that the Twitter mob deplores vigilantism yet its brand is an electronic lynching without weighing evidence or cross-examination — all from the safety of their smartphones.
Carlson’s mob knows all this.
But they also assume that their scatter-gun tactics of character defamation usually work — although, recently, a variety of intellectuals and writers such as J.K. Rowling, Steven Pinker or Yale classics professor Joshua Katz have said “no” and scattered the mob. And this election year, Carlson is a big target, given his growing cable news audience and his often-scorching commentaries about the past three months of escalating urban violence.
The cancel culture feels that if it can take out Carlson, it can wound its old nemesis, Fox News, and send a warning to any other journalists who dare argue that blue-state officials are either oblivious to the dangers of unchecked rioting or see it as apparently useful in this contentious election year.
Part of the intensity of venom shown Carlson reflects Democratic fears that the news cycle is changing. Polls suggest that keeping mum about the silence is backfiring politically.
Target Carlson is not alone, of course. This same week, social justice warriors took out a University of Southern California business professor for a lecture on cross-cultural speech patterns. His crime? Professor Greg Patton cited a Chinese word (na ge) for “that,” which to the outraged seemed similar in sound to an American racial slur. Professor Patton was quickly unplugged from his virtual classroom by the officious dean of the USC business school, for the apparent thought crime of supposedly employing a coded slur.
Anyone who watched Patton’s classroom video knows that such a charge is an outright lie. The slur was similar to the late 1990s’ Salem witch-style epidemic of destroying the careers of any bureaucrats who had once naively used the ancient English adverb “niggardly” (meaning “stingily” or “greedily”) that linguistically has nothing to do with the N-word.
We have not just created millions of bored, ignorant online scolds but, rather, sleepless and vicious character assassins. They notch their smartphones with the names of their victims.
How ironic that, as bullies, they melt away when called out, while destroying the very institutions of tolerance and free speech they, too, will miss when the mob devours its own — as it eventually always does.
A SHORT REFLECTION FROM MY HEART PRAYING BEFORE THE REAL PRESENCE
Sister Anne Sophie
IT IS AMAZING JESUS REAL PRESENCE AND PROFOUND THAT HE REMAINS HIDDEN YET REPOSES HERE BOLDLY IN OUR HUMBLE CHAPEL. I AM MOVED TO TEARS EACH DAY IN MY HEART BECAUSE THIS IS HIS WILL
.IN CONTEMPLATION IT IS BEYOND ALL UNDERSTANDING. YET IN THE SIMPLICITY OF THOUGHT, LOVING HIM WHO LOVES US IS A BEAUTIFUL PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WE EACH CAN HAVE WITH HIM. BEING AT HIS FEET IN ADORATION AND AWE PRAYING FOR THE SAKE AND THE LIFE OF EACH SOUL CONTINUES TO BE THE GREATEST CALL OF OUR VOCATION IN THIS LIFE.
EACH OF US SHARE THIS AND THIS BRINGS US CLOSER AND CLOSER TO GOD AND EACH OTHER.FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS, THE SAKE OF EVERY SOUL, IT IS TRULY THE BUILDING UP OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN FOR US TO BE USED AS WITNESSES TO DRAW ALL TO THE TRUTH THE WAY AND THE LIFE! LIVING THIS WAY BRINGS US DEEPER INTO THE ILLUMINATION WHICH COMES FROM THE LIGHT OF CHRIST CLEANSING US BY HIS PRECIOUS BLOOD OUR SINS AND GIVES US HIS HOLY WATER FROM HIS OCEAN OF MERCY TO QUENCH OUR THIRST.
AS HIS REAL PRESENCE CONTINUES TO BE THE CENTER OF WHO WE ARE I MUST TELL YOU THAT THIS VISIBLE MIRACLE OF THE CONSECRATED HOST REMAINS IN THE HEALING OF THE CHURCH, OURSELVES AND THE WHOLE WORLD MAY WE NEVER TAKE FOR GRANTED GOD’S REAL PRESENCE IN THE HOLY EUCHARIST. TO REALIZE TRULY REALIZE HE NEVER ABANDONS US, IS ALWAYS WITH US AND IN US. HE IS LOVE AND IT IS LOVE AND ONLY LOVE THAT GIVES US WHAT WE NEED MOST THAT LEADS US ALL TO ETERNAL LIFE ENDURING FOREVER.
WITH LOVE I AM THINKING OF YOU AND PRAYING FOR YOU
Sister Anne Sophie“A single act of pure Love pleases me more than a thousand imperfect prayers.” Jesus According to St. Faustina
Young conservatives are faced with difficult times. The cancel culture comes for all, and it comes in a vicious way to any who speak out against the orthodoxy of our time. Defenders of the American founding, free market capitalism, traditional family values, a traditional moral order, and other conventionally conservative ideas are seen as offenders by the wider culture.
What, then, are young conservatives to do? Potential employment opportunities, friendships, and reputations are on the line. And silence, even that of prudence, has been deemed as violence and an assent to the social sin of that day. Careful and decisive action is necessary—conservatives must speak.
Some conservatives have chosen to take the low road, assuming a recalcitrant and abrasive mentality. This mentality seemingly says, “if a war is what you want, then a war you shall have!” This is recognizable in many young conservatives. “Own the Libs” was the rallying cry of far too many young conservatives already, and current circumstances have only made it worse.
One can understand the tendency to move in that direction, when the opposition to conservatism and its ideas often fights dirty. If a person has been attacked or has seen his friends or family hurt by the words and actions of those with opposing views, he might feel called to retaliate and seek vengeance. Nonetheless, this does not require the abandonment of conservative principles.
The loud and unlistening bulwark mentality is flawed, and ultimately not conservative. The conservative intellectual tradition teaches that this is precisely the wrong attitude for conservatives to have and the wrong way for conservatives to act. Inherent to this tradition is a certain civility. What conservatives need now is a principled conservatism that seeks prudent and just action. In order to foster that principled conservatism, conservatives need to refer back to a cloud of witnesses, a wealth of wisdom and prudence from past thinkers.
The Antithesis to Ideology
One witness that young conservatives can look to is Russell Kirk. In his essay Ten Conservative Principles, Kirk wrote, “Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word ‘conservative’ as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.” Conservatism is fundamentally against ideology. It refuses to be brought to a dogmatic level and, when viewed in this light, is understood as a call to prudence.
Most Americans use the word ‘ideology’ in a neutral manner. One might say, “I am ideologically aligned with [fill-in-the-blank] candidate.” People use the word to mean a set of beliefs that govern their thinking. This seems harmless but in reality, ideology of any kind is rigidly dogmatic. Kirk’s use of the word implies the true danger of ideologies. Ideology keeps people from being able to see when they are wrong. It is dogmatic in the sense that it binds one to a system of belief that has no alternative. Importantly, ideology destroys the ability to be prudent, warping a person’s moral vision and precluding his ability to see the world as it actually is. Kirk understood this and in The Conservative Mind wrote, “Conservatism never is more admirable than when it accepts changes that it disapproves, with good grace, for the sake of a general conciliation.” Conservatives, according to Kirk, are not so dogmatic that they cannot work with those with whom they disagree.
It is ideology that drives both rioters to tear down statues of abolitionists and an unlistening attitude which chooses to wage war in response. Prudence, however, allows one to remain free from the control of any single prevailing or reactionary ideology and instead, think deeply and act rightly.
PrudenceIn order to understand the importance of prudence and why it sets one against ideology, it is worth hearing a brief word from the German philosopher Josef Pieper. In his book An Anthology, he writes,Prudence, strictly speaking, does not stand on the same level as justice, courage, and temperance; she is not, as it were, the eldest or the most beautiful of the four sisters. Prudence… is rather the mother of the other virtues… this means… that justice, courage and temperance exist only because of prudence! Prudence is the precondition for all that is ethically good.
Pieper gives prudence high praise setting it atop the other classical virtues as their “mother.” It is the virtue that gives life to the others—the sine qua non (the necessary condition). But why prudence? It is because prudence allows one to see the world as it really is.
Prudence, according to Pieper, is made of two parts. Prudence has to do with (1) being able to see things as they really are; and (2) acting on this correct vision: that is, perception and translation. He says, “prudence is the art of making the right decision based on the corresponding reality—no matter whether justice, courage or temperance is at stake.” This proper reception of reality is fundamental to one’s moral vision. One cannot see what is good if one cannot truly see. Prudence is having a well-ordered vision and seeing the world as it actually exists. It is not seeing the world as one wants to see it, or with a vision that is closed and blind to reality.
Moreover, prudence requires us to lay aside our biases: “What is asked of us, then, [in order to be prudent] is no less than this: to reduce our own interest to that silence which is an absolute precondition if we want to hear or perceive anything,” Pieper writes. Our own interest often obstructs our vision and obscures reality. This is part of the problem with the reactionary ideology that so many young conservatives have run to. These camps allow the interest of their ideology to obscure their moral vision and inhibit prudent action. Prudence ought to have a defining place for the conservative. Kirk wrote the following when commenting on the role of prudence in conservatism:[C]onservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity… As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences.
The conservative is one marked by movement that, while not necessarily slow, is necessarily thoughtful. The conservative changes when change is necessary and stands firm when a firm standing is called for. The conservative seeks to move rightly. Imagine someone standing in a room in front of three doors with her luggage. She opens each door and examines each room but leaves her things in the room where she entered. Upon examining the rooms, she may be entirely content to return to her things and make her home there for a while. Such is the conservative manner: inquisitive, patient, and prudent. The conservative would rather act rightly than hastily.
The Conservative Civility
How then should young conservatives respond to the cancel culture? For this one can turn to another witness who has identified the very crux of what it means to have genuine civil dialogue: Theodore Zeldin. In his little book Conversation, Dr. Zeldin writes,The kind of conversation I’m interested in is one which you start with a willingness to emerge a slightly different person. It is always an experiment, whose results are never guaranteed. It involves risk. It’s an adventure in which we agree to cook the world together and make it taste less bitter.
Some interpret Dr. Zeldin to require a sacrifice of their intellectual foundations. For example, a conversation where a Catholic might have to give up his belief in the sanctity of life. This interpretation of Dr. Zeldin usually arises from one of two things: (1) a fear that one is incapable of defending themselves or (2) a failure to see opponents as valuable members of society. To enter a conversation with the “willingness to emerge a slightly different person” is a vision of prudence. Dr. Zeldin is asking people to lay aside self-interest in order that they might see things as they actually are. Thus, civility flows from prudence. Civility does not require one to sacrifice his convictions or morals—unless they are wrong. If one is not proven wrong in the course of a conversation, one is still able to emerge in some way changed through an understanding of what the other believes. This type of conversation requests that you understand those subtleties of human thought, be prudent, and listen to your interlocutor.
One common retort to this is, “others do not do this, so why should I?” This is unfortunately true; nonetheless, this type of conversation not only requires civility from prudence, but it also has the ability to civilize and cultivate prudence. When people approach other human beings with clear moral vision and recognition of their personhood, they appeal to the humanity of the other—the act of civility. Being treated in this loving and prudent way acknowledges the other’s humanity and creates space for civility. Civility rings the bell of humanity within the other’s soul. Now, it might not work. That other person may not be willing to hold this type of conversation or, unfortunately, we may be bad practitioners. This is no excuse to give in to ideology. Rather, let one seek to raise both himself and others to civility and prudence.
Some people will read this essay to have simply said, “be nice to one another.” Though kindness and charity certainly play a main role in cultivating this attitude of civility, it is not inimical to serious disagreement or even just reproach. What this essay emphasizes is the need to be civil. Civility is the act of recognizing the personhood of one’s interlocutor and appealing to his humanity. This does not mean one cannot implore the other to see truth or find his logic inconsistent and wrong—it simply means one ought not assault the other person verbally or physically. The prudent thing to do in moments of disagreement is to listen and attempt to persuade one’s interlocutor. This is a far more powerful tool than attacking him.
Today, conservatism finds itself in danger of losing its way. In an attempt to win what feels like an all-out war, young conservatives take on the common tactics of the day—and too many surrender to ideology. Civility is the conservatives’ key to rise above the fray. When conservatives surrender their civility to the abrasiveness that boosts ratings and receives retweets, they sacrifice a part of the tradition that makes them conservative. Conservatives ought not sacrifice that tradition, for without it they have no ground upon which to stand.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on What conservatives need now is a principled conservatism that seeks prudent and just action. In order to foster that principled conservatism, conservatives need to refer back to a cloud of witnesses, a wealth of wisdom and prudence from past thinkers.
I watched the 2020 Republican National Convention on C-Span, largely because the screen is uncluttered with banners and preview windows and they hang around at the end of such events for awhile, particularly when President Trump, Vice-President Mike Pence, or First Lady Melania is the speaker. I would try to turn to Fox for analysis only to see first up the shining visage of a Marie Harf or a Juan Williams, the Democrat who has lately been obsessing about something called “QAnon violence” whatever that is.
Mornings at Fox have not been much better, with the likes former DNC chair Donna Brazile who, on Tuesday morning’s episode, lost it entirely when questioned about the DNC’s failure to address and accept responsibility for the anarchy, rioting, looting, burning, and deaths resulting from the Democratic Party’s push to empty the prisons, defund and otherwise neuter the police, and to not arrest or prosecute vigorously those perpetrating the violence. As Breitbart reported:
Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends,” host Brian Kilmeade cut away from former Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile, also a network contributor, after she derailed a segment with conservative commentator Tammy Bruce.
While commenting on the first night of the Republican National Convention, Bruce said, “No Democratic has spoken out against the nature of what’s happening in Kenosha, Portland, Seattle, Baltimore, New York, Chicago. Americans have a choice, and the fact is that the Republicans are showing an expanse of what the American sensibility and what the American future is.” Brazile said, “This is why the choir sounds like a note coming from a scratched record. It sounds like I will never be an American in your world, because, after 400 years, my family cannot walk out of this house without fearing violence.” Kilmeade said, “That’s not what anyone said.”
After an extended back and forth, Brazile said, “She ignores the reality of what is happening. She is ignoring it because I see it. Tammy, I see it every day. I see the violence, Tammy.”
She continued, “Coming from someone who does not live my existence — you do not recognize my existence, Tammy. You do not recognize my existence!” Bruce said, “It’s a shame.”
Brazile shot back, “You are the shameful one. You are the shameful one. You cannot erase my history.”
Whatever was she ranting about? No one is trying to erase her history. It is Donna Brazile, not Tammy Bruce or anyone else, who is ignoring the reality of Democratic governors and mayors letting their cities burn amid an anarchy that has nothing to do with George Floyd or any social injustice real or imagined. It has everything to do with seizing power from Donald Trump, and canceling our middle class, our culture, and our system of law enforcement and justice.
Donna Brazile, the disgraced former DNC leader and newly minted Fox News contributor who leaked debate questions to Hillary Clinton, got away with swearing at RNC Chairwoman Ronna Mcdanion the morning after Super Thursday, as Joe Biden called it, instead of being pulled from the air immediately as Fox would have cheerfully done to any conservative analyst who similarly ranted before telling say, the DNC Chair, to similarly “go to hell.” McDaniel had appeared earlier on “America’s Newsroom,” and opined that perhaps the withdrawal of Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg and the support of Beto O’Rourke was part of deal-making that included future cabinet positions and other considerations in exchange for their endorsements. McDaniel suggested, based on the 2016 nominating shenanigans, that perhaps the DNC was once again conspiring to deny Bernie Sanders its nomination. This was the partisan analysis of a political operative in an election year, an opinion she was entitled to express, an opinion well-grounded in the historical record.
This struck a nerve with Brazile, who, asked to comment, went off on a borderline incoherent rant that stunned Newsroom co-hosts Ed Henry And Sandra Smith, who said nothing to correct the record or apologize to an equally stunned audience as Brazile went off the rails:
Ms. Brazile, a Fox News contributor and former interim Democratic National Committee chairwoman, became visibly irate during an appearance on “America’s Newsroom” after co-host Sandra Smith asked her to weigh in on comments made earlier on the program by Ms. McDaniel, who said a potential brokered Democratic convention would be “rigged” against the Vermont senator. “Stay the hell out of our race,” Ms. Brazile responded. “I get sick and tired … of listening to Republicans tell me and the Democrats about our process. First of all, they don’t have a process. They are canceling primaries. They have winner-take-all. They don’t have the kind of democracy that we see on the Democratic side.
“And for people to use Russian talking points to sow division among Americans — that is stupid,” she continued. “So Ronna, go to hell! This is not about—” “Whoa, whoa,” co-anchor Ed Henry interjected.
“No, go to hell,” Ms. Brazile repeated. “I’m tired of it, Ed.”
Again, it is hard to imagine a GOP or conservative getting away with this. Russian talking points? Really? Fox’s idea of analysis is to provide a forum for Brazile to cry, “Russia, Russia, Russia.” So impressed was Fox with Brazile’s cogent analysis that she was back in the evening for post-election analysis and on “Fox and Friends” the following morning. This is typical for a Fox News that has been veering to the left of late, a recent example being Neil Cavuto’s rewriting of history when he agreed with guest A.B. Stoddard that Trump lost all his 2016 debates with “cringeworthy” performances.
And then there’s Juan Williams, who recently reacted almost as irrationally when asked on “The Five” about Democratic responsibility and culpability for urban violence in Democratic-run cities. As the Daily Caller reported: Juan Williams compared blaming Democrats for ongoing riots and “anarchist violence” to blaming President Donald Trump for “QAnon violence” during a Thursday discussion on Fox News’ “The Five.”Guest-co-host Martha MacCallum played a clip of a former police officer being knocked down and assaulted on a New York City street.
“This was on 39th street,” MacCallum said. “This is basically midtown in the middle of the afternoon. They pulled 600 police officers off the streets, and now we are seeing this. So is this a mistake for Democrats to ignore this?” “They haven’t mentioned it once, Juan,” MacCallum said, referring to the ongoing Democratic National Convention.
“There is not widespread violence in American cities,” Williams responded. “Let’s not buy into Donald Trump’s nonsense about American… violent crime in this country is down.”
“Stop it, Juan… You can’t be serious. I’m not Donald Trump. I’m telling you the facts. Every day I tell you the facts, Juan, and you keep shifting it to Donald Trump. It’s pathetic. You need to come up with a new talking point,” cohost Greg Gutfeld said.
Gutfeld continued and said, “the murders and shootings are up,” as Williams continued to speak at the same time.
“This is not anarchist violence by a small group in Portland, Oregon, that’s suddenly being blown into like, ‘oh that represents what is going on in American cities,’” Williams said. “That’s just wrong! That’s just a total distraction. The reality is that Democrats are not responsible for some violent anarchists no more than Donald Trump is responsible for QAnon violence or Proud Boy violence…”
Again, Juan, what in the world is QAnon violence? Where is it happening? The answer is that it isn’t, and doesn’t exist except in the fevered recesses of Juan Williams’ brain.
President Trump has commented on the decline of Fox News as an objective source of information, particularly its weekend lineup. As the Washington Examiner reported:
President Trump criticized Fox News’ weekend lineup, saying they were loading up with Democrats, making them worse than CNN.”Watching @FoxNews weekend anchors is worse than watching low ratings Fake News @CNN, or Lyin’ Brian Williams,” Trump said Sunday on Twitter. “Like CNN, NBC is also way down in the ratings. But @FoxNews, who failed in getting the very BORING Dem debates, is now loading up with Democrats & even using Fake unsourced @nytimes as a ‘source’ of information.”
“@FoxNews is changing fast, but they forgot the people who got them there!”
Trump added. So it would seem, as FOX continues to embrace its latest Democratic heartthrob, Donna Brazile. The continued listing to port of Fox News, which rose to prominence precisely because it cut through the politically correct swamp fog that passed as media news just as Donald Trump sliced through the swamp itself on his way to the White House, was on full display. It’s time to drain the Fox News swamp as well.
Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times
Amid rhetoric on part of some, including prelates regarding Biden’s Catholicity, at Sun Mass, +Cupich goes there: “There should never be a time or a moment in which we judge others and judge others and their faith journey and say that a person is not Christian enough or Catholic enough.” Listen:[https://mobile.twitter.com/richraho/status/1300108763987402755]
Have Francis and his mouthpiece Cupich redefined “pro-life” in such a way that Adolf Hitler can be considered “pro-life”?
Below is a list that Francis and his mouthpiece would most likely agree with from the liberal Quora.com on Hitler’s so-called good and bad points: “Good. For following –
“Bad. For Following
Even though Cupich is personally against abortion he said on Face the Nation said that he would give Communion to pro-abortion politicians. Hitler was such a politician. He legalized abortion in Germany.
In his interview with Face the Nation the then Archbishop Blase Cupich was asked:
“When you say we cannot politicize the communion rail, you would give communion to politicians, for instance, who support abortion rights.”
Cupich said on Face the Nation in 2014 that he would give Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians:
“I would not use the Eucharist or as they call it the communion rail as the place to have those discussions or a way in which people would be either [sic] excluded from the life of the church. The Eucharist is an opportunity of grace and conversion. It’s also a time of forgiveness of sins. So my hope would be that that grace would be instrumental in bringing people to the truth.” [http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/on-giving-communion-pro-abortion-politicians]
In 1933, when the Nazis came to power, one of pro-abortion politician Hitler’s first acts was to legalize abortion for the “health of the mother” which meant abortion on demand. By 1935 Germany had 500,000 abortions a year.[http://www.klannedparenthood.com/nazis-and-abortion/hitler-was-pro-choice/]
Cupich stated that pro-abortion politicians like Hitler should receive Holy Communion and he, also, explicitly said cutting up babies is morally equal, much the same as, joblessness and other issues. The Chicago Cardinal said:
“While commerce in the remains of defenseless children is particularly repulsive, we should be no less appalled by the indifference toward the thousands of people who die daily for lack of decent medical care; who are denied rights by a broken immigration system and by racism; who suffer in hunger, joblessness.”
Cardinal Cupich sounded like a Nazi sympathizer when he compared the genocide and mutilation of unborn babies to joblessness and other issues.
He compared the “Planned Parenthood grisly traffic in aborted babies body parts to… joblessness and a broken immigration system.” (“Leftist CDL Cupich In Running to Chair US Bishops’ Pro-Life Committee,” Church Militant, October 24, 2017)
Would Cupich call Hitler “prolife” since he agreed with many of his consistent ethic of life stances?
Hitler agreed with many of Francis’s and Cupich’s consistent ethic of life stances.
Francis and his mouthpiece stand united in the following consistent ethic issues. The Nazi dictator fought against joblessness and anti-environmentalism.
The progressive pro-Cupich magazine Commonwealth reported that Pope Francis, in an article titled “How Pope Francis Reframed the Politics of Being ‘Prolife,'” now says:
Being “prolife” is not a “single-issue” and, also, means ”’the environment devastated by man’s predatory relationship with nature’… undocumented immigrants and unemployed workers.” (Commonwealth, By John Gehring, September 13, 2017)
Since pro-life is not a single issue then by Francis’s “refram[ing]” of the word then Hitler’s grisly death camp genocide should be counterbalanced by the fact that the Nazi government reduced unemployment from six million to one million and was one of the first to create environmental protection laws.
Francis and the Cardinal in their statements down play the abortion genocide while making climate change a top priority and appear to, also, equate environmentalism (and even tobacco smoking which was just outlawed in the Vatican) with having a consistent ethic life position.
By their “refram[ing]” Hitler was pro-life since it’s not a single issue and he agreed with many of Francis’s consistent ethic of life stances.
Hitler had a “stance against Tobacco use” and the “Nazi’s were the first to create environmental protection laws in history” according to the Nazi sympathizer website europeanknights project.com. (12 Things You We’re Not Told About Adolph Hitler and Nazi (NSDAP) Germany,” January 13, 2017)
The scholarly book “How Green Were the Nazis?: Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich,” also, impartially reports that Hitler’s government “mounted the most effective anti-smoking propaganda campaign ever before 1980” and “nature protection and conversation laws… from an environmentalist perspective, the best in the world.” (amazon.com/go/aw/reviews/082141672, First review)
Lifesitenews.com pointed out that Cupich said abortion “is a ‘controversial issue.’ It needs to be ‘put behind us so the government can focus on it’s budget.'”
This statement sounds like something similar to what a Nazi sympathizer would say:
The Jewish genocide is a “controversial issue,” it needs to be put behind us so the government can focus on it’s budget, joblessness, environmental issues and train prices.
The Lifesitenews responding to the Chicago Cardinal’s statement, which could, also, be addressed to Francis, said:
“Your Eminence, abortion is immoral because it kills… Dietrich Bonhoeffer didn’t fret about train prices in Nazi Germany. He spoke truth to power about the genocide of Jews and eventually lost his life.” (“Cardinal Cupich shows his priorities in responses to two different tragedies,” November 8, 2017, Lifesitenews.com)
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate of Mary.
Fred Martinez
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on IF YOU ARE IN DOUBT THAT THE CHURCH IS CAUGHT UP IN AN IMMENSE MORAL CRISIS, READ THIS AND REMOVE YOUR DOUBT
Let God arise, and let His enemies be scatteredand let them that hate HimFlee from before His Face.~Psalm 67 ¡Viva Cristo † Rey! ¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe! Si vis pacem, para bellum! Benedictus Deus in Saecula!
This email is to correct an error made during the Republican National Convention in Washington DC Thursday night August 28, 2020, by a Sister of the Little Workers of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary. Sister said that Our Lady was an Un-Wed Mother, her words: “while we tend to think of the marginalized as living beyond our borders, the truth is the largest marginalized group in the world can be found here in the United States. They are the unborn. As Christians, we first met Jesus as a stirring embryo in the womb of an UN-WED mother.”
I believe Sister is not totally to blame for this serious “error” about Our Blessed Ever Virgin Mary, but the Bishops whose job it is to teach the Faith and Defend the Truth Can. 386 §1 & §2 and Can. 387. This evil and blasphemous lie about Our Lady is just like the lie of “theistic evolution,” they are both attacks on Our Blessed Mother and wish that they would be corrected by those who She has called to the Priesthood, I pray that these errors be corrected from the pulpit from every parish.
As Servant of God Fr. John Hardon said: The Secret to Defeating the devil“… the genius of satan is to deceive the human mind in order to seduce the human will. Memorize that logic. satan knows that all the evil in the world begins with ERROR. Let me repeat. satan knows that all the evil in world begins with error. In other words, all sin in the human heart begins as untruth in the human mind.”
“Let no one presume to hope for the mercy of God, who dares to slight or offend God’s Mother.” ~St. Louis de Montfort
May God have mercy on us and Our Lady of Prompt Succor, St. Joseph, St. Michael and St. Raphael guide and protect us in the days ahead,
Diane Siereveld
Two Terrible Translations
by Mary J. GiovanoniDescription:The purpose of this article is to examine how poor translations of the word “betrothed” and the phrase “I know not man” have led to misunderstandings about the marital status of Mary and Joseph at the time of the Incarnation. Mary Giovanoni explains the two-part Jewish ceremony which proves beyond any doubt that Joseph and Mary were in fact married when the Incarnation took place. Publisher & Date:Ignatius Press, San Francisco, CA, April 2007
The Catholic Church has two terrible English translations widely used by priests today: “betrothed” translated as “engaged” and “I know not man” translated as “I have no husband.”
First, “betrothed” needs to be translated as “married” because Mary and Joseph were married before the Annunciation — when they both had signed the marriage contract at the 1st part of the 2-part Jewish ceremony. For the 1st century Jewish culture, this was the definitive point when the man and woman became husband and wife. It is necessary to remember that Mary and Joseph, as practicing Jews, followed the rules of their society, including the rites of the 2-part marriage ceremony. In any culture a couple is either “married” or “not married.” There are no “almost married,” “half married” or “considered married.” Outsiders — those not of the culture — may choose to consider them not married. However, the outsider’s opinion is of no concern to the culture.
The Talmudic website (www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm) has much information on Jewish marriage customs. Under the section titled, “The Process of Marriage: Kiddushin and Nusuin,” the Rabbi explains Mary and Joseph’s 2-part Jewish marriage ceremony thus, “The process of marriage occurs in two distinct stages: kiddushin (commonly translated as betrothal) and nusuin. Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce.”
Since Mary and Joseph had completed kiddushin, by Jewish law they were married before the Incarnation — truly married as the Rabbi said. Note that the Jewish ceremony does not require that Mary and Joseph live together immediately after they become husband and wife!
After the marriage contract is signed by both, only death or divorce releases them from the marriage. If Joseph had denounced Mary publicly, she would have been stoned as an adulteress because she was married to Joseph and the child was not his. Nusuin, the second part when the husband brings his wife into his home, causes much confusion in Christian cultures because it occurs later. The Rabbis by writing down their Laws have preserved the proof that Mary and Joseph were married before the Incarnation. I cannot stress enough the importance that we carefully preserve this piece of our Jewish heritage, so it is available to future generations.
This 2-part marriage ceremony is described in the Gospel of Matthew 1:18, “Now the origin of Christ was in this wise. When Mary his mother had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.” This verse, by saying that Mary and Joseph were betrothed at the Incarnation, states that the kiddushin had been completed. Joseph was planning to dissolve the marriage privately, when the angel appeared to him and explained the true situation, “Do not be afraid, Joseph, son of David, to take to thee Mary thy wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 1:20). Joseph then completed the nusuin by taking Mary his wife into his house.
God, in his infinite Wisdom, protected Mary and Jesus from harm by providing Joseph, a holy, kind man to care and provide for them. The early Fathers wrote much on living a virtuous Christian life, on combating heresies, on the Incarnation and the necessity of Mary being a Virgin. These writers would be Jews or Gentiles who remembered Jewish culture and therefore would know that Mary and Joseph were married at the Incarnation. Their immediate concerns were preaching Mary’s virginity — before, during and after the Incarnation — as well as other Church doctrines and combating heresies.
However, by the 4th century A.D. knowledge of Jewish society had lessened so much that confusion resulted because of poor translations. St. Ambrose thought it necessary to reaffirm the fact that Mary and Joseph were married. To correct the poor translation of “espoused,” he wrote, “. . . for any woman espoused to a man is given the name of wife. It is from the time that a marriage begins that the marital terminology is employed. It is not the deflowering of virginity that makes a marriage, but the marital contract.” (St. Ambrose, “The Faith of the Early Fathers,” Vol. 2, p.172).
St. Augustine also wrote that Mary and Joseph were truly married in Book 1, “On Marriage And Concupiscence.” He writes, “For it was not deceitfully that the angel said to Joseph: ‘Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife.’ She is called his wife because of her first troth of betrothal (kiddushin), although he had no carnal knowledge of her, nor was destined to have.”
Centuries later St. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologia1 (New Advent website), writes, Thus we may say, as to the first perfection, that the marriage of the Virgin Mother of God and Joseph was absolutely true: because both consented to the nuptial bond, but not expressly to the bond of the flesh, save on the condition that it was pleasing to God.
For this reason the angel called Mary the wife of Joseph, saying to him (Matthew 1:20): ‘Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife.’
St Thomas Aquinas also corrected St. Jerome’s objections in the Summa Theologiae, “Was There a True Marriage Between Mary And Joseph?”2 St. Jerome assumed that marriage exists only after sexual relations. This was obviously not true of a Jewish marriage, because they are husband and wife after the kiddushin, before they live together. This misconception that a Jewish contractual marriage is the same as a Christian sacramental marriage exists today. You cannot judge “married” by our culture, when considering “married” in another very different culture.
Many modern priests believe that unless the marriage is consummated, there is no marriage. Therefore again, in our modern culture Pope John Paul II has made it abundantly clear that Mary and Joseph were married, when he wrote, “According to Jewish custom, marriage took place in two stages: first the legal or true marriage was celebrated, and then, only after a certain period of time, the husband brought the wife into his own house. Thus before he lived with Mary, Joseph was already her ‘husband'”‘ (“Redemptoris Custos” no.18).
Definitely, the problem today is similar to previous centuries; it is poor translations of the word, “betrothal.” The modern “engaged” or even the modern “betrothed” do not even come close to “married” — and “married” is the accurate translation. A question to Judie Brown on EWTN Q & A illustrates the confusion. The question, about sexual union between engaged couples, asked — Since the Bible condemns fornication but not necessarily between engaged couples, because in Biblical time if a man and woman were betrothed they were allowed sexual relations, are engaged couples allowed sexual relations? And Judie answered, “Sexual union between ANY unmarried couple is promiscuity; it is a sin. The ACT is fornication; even if the couple is engaged to be married. Your understanding of “betrothed” in Biblical times is erroneous.” Judie then defines the root word, (“to betroth”), from which the Talmudic abstract (“betrothal”) is derived and ends with this statement, “In strict accordance with this sense the rabbinical law declares that the betrothal is equivalent to an actual marriage and only to be dissolved by a formal divorce.”
Unfortunately this is not only one person’s confusion. A teacher of tenth-grade boys wrote to the “Adoremus Bulletin” Feb. 2006. While teaching the class about abstinence, the boys asked the same question, “If in the first century it was OK to have sex during engagement, why can’t we do it today?” The teacher ended the letter by asking us to consider the extent to which the morality of the next generation depends “on the half-witted translation of one Latin word.”
It is amazing how an unfortunate translation of one word can change historical truth to a lie, and effect the incorrect modern interpretation of a historical fact about the marital status of Mary and Joseph before the Incarnation.
Because the Jewish 2-part marriage ceremony is different, we want to force it into our concept of engagement, instead of the actual marriage that it is! A culture similar to the Jews might consider our marriage not “real” because we do not have a written contract. Whatever the word for “married” is in a culture, that is the correct translation to be used for kiddushin. Whether our culture wants to accept a 2000-year-old Jewish marriage now, is irrelevant to the truth — that Mary and Joseph were married before the Incarnation.
Unfortunately, too many priests today claim Mary was engaged, or single and pregnant, or an unwed mother, due to the poor translation of “betroth” to “engage.” They never explain why God would place the Mother of His Son in such danger of disgrace. Women seem to sense the disrespect and dishonor done to the Blessed Virgin more than men. Since this is a historical law that can be researched, theology does not apply here.
Priests are erroneously taught in some seminaries that Mary was engaged to Joseph, which is not the truth. Two priests co-authored a book stating, “Mary was single and pregnant,” and then in the 1st paragraph wrote that Joseph planned to divorce her. Now a divorce, which is required to dissolve a marriage, would not be necessary, if Mary were single or engaged. To protect Mary and Jesus, God sent an angel to explain the situation to Joseph, her husband. When Joseph did as the angel said and claimed Jesus as his son, thereby under the Jewish law, Joseph became the father of Jesus. This is not theological, only another consequence of Jewish Law. Because Joseph accepted publicly Jesus as his son, he was the father of Jesus in the Jewish culture, and Jesus was called — the son of the carpenter.
In an e-mail a priest defends his position by explaining “Despite the Jewish ‘concept’ of legal betrothal, Mary was legally and biologically a Virgin in the fullest sense and every other sense.” What has Mary’s virginity got to do with her marriage? That Mary was a virgin before, during and after the Incarnation is an article of Faith. A dogma I firmly believe and a matter completely outside Jewish marriage laws — which is what I am discussing here. That Mary and Joseph were married by Jewish Law is a historical fact and I doubt if Jews of any era would agree that their laws were mental concepts. I can’t agree either, since the laws of a culture are very concrete objects concerning matters of life and death. It is a matter of Revelation of the Catholic Church that Mary was a virgin before, during and after the Incarnation. Her perpetual virginity does not determine whether or not she was married. The Early Church Fathers defended Mary’s perpetual virginity often, for it was and is a difficult concept for the Jews and pagans.
Another priest wrote, “Mary and Joseph or any couple, are not husband and wife until they give mutual consent at the time of the wedding ceremony before the officiating minister, priest, deacon or rabbi.” The whole point of the kiddushin — the 1st part of the Jewish marriage — was for the man and woman to both sign the marriage contract before witnesses. The kiddushin was their mutual consent. When the contract was signed, the couple were married under Jewish law and could only be separated by divorce or death.
When I wrote a priest who claimed on TV that Mary and Joseph were engaged, he said he could not find a Douay Rheims Bible and used a modern dictionary for the word “betrothed.” Of course he found the terrible translation of “promise to marry” or “an engagement.” Father did not think the listeners would be able to understand any explanation in the short period he had on TV. He considered this a theological problem, when actually it is a legal one. Now the Incarnation is theological, but not the marriage!
With my letter I had enclosed a copy of Pope John Paul II’s “Redemptoris Custos” #18. Father ignored the highlighted quote of the Pope’s words and claimed the Pope used “betrothed” as not married. However, throughout the section John Paul always uses “betrothed” as “married” — easily understood in the context.
Last year I became very disturbed at the prevalence of this untruth and wrote someone at EWTN whom I thought well informed. He referred my letter to an assistant, “M”, who claimed that the time of Mary’s marriage to Joseph is disputed. Many things can be disputed but a well-documented Jewish law does not fall in that category. Since they were married at the kiddushin, the time of their marriage was defined. Mr. “M” also claimed that St. Thomas Aquinas believed that Mary was not married at the Incarnation. As I have already quoted above, the truth is just the opposite! St. Thomas’ answer to the question, “Was there a true marriage between Mary and Joseph?,”3 was a definite “Yes.” It appears that Mr. “M” has confused the list of objections with St. Thomas’ answer. As is St Thomas’ method, he first mentions objections to Mary and Joseph being married, given by other commentators. Then St. Thomas refutes these objections, after he has explained why they were truly married at the Annunciation. First St. Thomas Aquinas describes what a true marriage is. Then he states his answer to the given question, which is that Mary and Joseph were truly married. In this same section St. Thomas quotes St. Augustine and St. Ambrose and gives their conclusion — that Mary and Joseph were married. To complete the answer, St Thomas refutes each of the three objections mentioned in the first part. Without careful reading of the Summa, it is possible to confuse the “objections” — the incorrect answers to the question — with St. Thomas’ correct answer.
Now let’s consider the second poor translation — “I know not man” to “I have no husband.” This translation can only occur when the first bad translation is assumed true — which it isn’t because of Jewish marriage laws. This second wrong translation obscures the real meaning of Mary’s response to the angel. Since Mary knew she was married to Joseph, she would not have answered that she did not have a husband. In Mary’s Jewish culture, the phrase: “I know not man” meant she was a virgin, that she had never had sexual relations with a man. Mary knew that as a married woman she could have marital relations. Therefore when she questioned the angel — “How shall this be done, because I know not man?” Luke 1:34 (Douay-Rheims New Testament), Mary was telling the angel that she planned to remain a virgin even though married. Being the perfect human person, Mary would have discussed this very important decision with Joseph and secured his agreement before any marriage took place. When the angel explained how she would conceive a son by the Holy Spirit and remain a virgin, then Mary, without reservation, agreed to the Incarnation.
St. Augustine — in “Of Holy Virginity”4 expands the understanding of Luke 1:34. After quoting Mary speaking to the angel, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”, he says:
“Whether assuredly she would not say, unless she before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because the habits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a just man, who would not take her by violence, but rather guard against violent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had said this only, “How shall this take place?” and had not added, “seeing I know not a man”, certainly she would have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promised Son, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse.”
When the Jewish marriage law — the real proof of Mary and Joseph’s being truly married — is ignored or dismissed as a concept by priests today there is little chance, we will hear about it. Hopefully, when the church swings back to much better translations, the actual proof of their marriage will resurface again. The best solution would be that the 1st century Jewish marriage, as the Rabbi explained, be placed in plain sight in the Catholic Church archives for anyone interested to view! It may not be dogma, but it is a very interesting piece of our Jewish heritage and the written proof that Mary and Joseph were married before the Incarnation.
When our Jewish heritage and the teachings of Pope John Paul II are ignored, the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose misinterpreted or misquoted, it appears people have made up their minds and do not want to be confused by accurate translations. Until translations improve and catechesis is more toward God and less toward social work, I doubt if there will be any change.
Mrs. Mary Giovanoni, a retired Aero Engineer, is a wife and mother of five children and grandmother of four. She lives in Maryland with her husband, Richard, who is also a retired engineer. Prior to her marriage in 1954, she worked for Chance Vought Aircraft Corp. in Dallas, TX. While in Dallas she obtained her pilot’s license, won the ZONTA International Amelia Earhart scholarship, using it to obtain her masters at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. She is one of the earliest women to receive recognition from the Tau Beta Pi engineering honor society.
Nest Month, the Vatican will talk to Beijing about renewing its 2018 deal with the Chinese Communist Party. The ‘secret’ one that effectively allowed President XI to choose the country’s Catholic Bishops. He has used this power to force Catholics loyal to Rome to join the puppet Catholic Church set up by Chairman Mao in the 1950’s By Damian Thompson/Benedict Kiely/Catherine Lafferty
Faithful Catholics of the Underground Church can no longer refuse on the grounds that they recognize only the Pope’s Church. Why? Because Francis himself has validated the orders of XI’s party stooges.
The Silent Pope
But the Holy Father has done more than that: he has ostentatiously failed to condemn China’s savage assaults on human rights, the worst of which is its attempt to eradicate the country’s Muslim Uyghurs ethnic minority by herding them into concentration camps and forcing Uighur women to have abortions.
Pope Francis accepts a communist cross, a Crucifix attached to a hammer and sickle, from Bolivian President Evo Morales in Le Paz, Bolivia
As I say in this episode of Holy Smoke, the Pope’s behaviour is not just a disgrace but a mystery. The Catholic Church has gained nothing from the 2018 pact. On the contrary, it has given Beijing a handy excuse to intensify its harassment of Catholics. So why is the Vatican apparently keen to renew a deal that so badly reflects on it?
Just FollowThe Money
One plausible explanation is money. Rome hasn’t got any! China enjoys nothing more than buying influence. This year, claims surfaced that the Communist Party is quietly slipping the Vatican Euro 1.6 billion a year in order to buy the Pope’s silence about the Uyghurs, the subjugation of Hong Kong and the demolition of churches.
Damian Thompson: https:www.spectator.co.uk/podcast/the-fatican-s-sinister -deal-with-BeijingCatherine Lafferty, journalist Father Benedict Kelly, a campaigner on behalf of persecuted religious minorities captions and pictures by Hauriet Aquas
Be my Guest and share Thank you.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THIRTY PIECES OF SILVER
How does anyone who leans even slightly left reconcile the fact all Trump-supporters are virulent white supremacists with the most racially diverse Republican National Convention in the history of Republican conventions? More to the point, not only was it racially diverse, but each black speaker celebrated both President Trump as an individual and America as a whole. There was not a hint of oppression or victimhood. (The same commentary could also be made of the amazing women as well — 2024 ticket of Noem/Haley anyone? Oh wait, never mind — we hate women, too.) From a leftist worldview, how is it possible that Trump is a racist, but blacks can celebrate him?
Seriously, though, how do the left and those infected by its pernicious thoughtlessness explain the presence of such powerful black voices and honest advocacy for Trumpian politics from the likes of Tim Scott, Daniel Cameron, Ja’Ron Smith, Kim Klacik, and others? Apparently, the fact that a black man from the American Deep South can experience a generational transition “from cotton to Congress” does not impress all folks.
As if on cue, media outlets immediately began assigning these prominent and successful individuals as the Republican Party’s token “black friends.” The term “Uncle Tom” even trended on Twitter. Lest the black community — nay, black individuals — wrestle with political identity and philosophy on their own, the media and leftist elites announced how they should viscerally react to dissident black voices.
The most incongruous aspect of all of this is that this crop of fiercely independent blacks are simultaneously not black if they vote for Trump, according to the Democratic candidate for president, and also tokens of the black community if they stand on stage supporting him. Which one is it? To the left, it is impossible that a black could support Republicans, so unless they got paid off, duped, or hustled, the only remaining conclusion is that angry leftist voices consider black Republicans as less than. If a white leftist says it, is that not racist by definition —a white being better than a black? All of this is a tiring exercise. In the political sphere, what else is Trump supposed to do exactly with the black community? He can ignore it and be a racist or focus on it and be a racist, but not both.
The left regularly impugns his character with hackneyed and outlandish charges of racism. He was compared to Hitler for caging immigrant kids, but it turned out that Obama built the facilities and “caged” them for years prior to the arrival of The Donald. He cracked down on unmitigated travel from what happened to be Muslim countries and even left off the most populous Muslim country in the world (Indonesia) but still got branded an Islamophobic xenophobe despite the implementation being a continuation of Obama-era policies. He got flak for calling Baltimore third-world, but then Kim Klacik came along and sounded off even more. Bernie got a pass for saying the exact same thing.
None of it sticks, but the beliefs persist.
All of this effort at fomenting hate, despite Trump intentionally seeking to redress real issues in the black community, from prison reform under 2018’s First Step Act that alleviated low-level incarceration in the black community to historic levels of HBCU funding (just to name two). Articles by independent black women — including the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. go into more accomplishments through their own lens.
In the case of the HBCU funding, the president and CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund was quoted as saying at the time Trump assumed office: “This was something that, frankly, the black college community assumed would have been easily accomplished with the first African-American president, and after over eight years of repeated requests, to think that within 45 days of his presidency we were able to convene all of the [HBCU] presidents in the Oval Office…“
Even things as minor as pardoning Jack Johnson go to the root of righting wrongs. Where was Obama, the first black president, in tackling any of the real issues keeping the black community down? How did he help anyone? The reality is that the media will focus on whatever is or is not happening and portray it negatively. There is no truth too stretched or fact too inconvenient. If Trump comes out in support of police, he is a white supremacist upholding institutional racism.
If he champions the black community by directing funds to its needs or employing a diverse field of qualified individuals, he panders to them or houses a cadre of Uncle Toms whom he pays in silver pieces.
Americans, especially the black community, are starting to wake up to the empty promises and dangerous consequences of voting blue. If you live in Chicago, Seattle, New York, Minneapolis, Portland, etc., do you feel safer? Does the lack of police make your life better? If you stop to ask black Americans what they want, over 80% of them say they want the same level of policing or more compared to pre–George Floyd. Nevertheless, the lie marches on that Democrats have blacks’ interest best at heart.
In an honest world, the likes of Tim Scott, Daniel Cameron, Ja’Ron Smith, and Kim Klacik would be elevated as exemplars of what is possible in America. They are all black Americans who have overcome the legacies of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation through their own familial and individual determinations and not let their circumstances dictate their outcomes.
Senator Scott admitted to his record of driving while black, and while it is a point of frustration for him and a terrific focus for societal improvement, it need not define his life or prevent him from achieving greatness. In a state with five million people, he is one of two U.S. senators representing all of them. That’s pretty good for anybody, let alone a black man in a country alleged to hunt down blacks wherever possible.
Ms. Klacik has her own special background, which, before entering politics, includes starting a non-profit focused on assisting women intent on re-entering the workforce and obtaining financial independence. Gosh, she sounds like a monster.
For daring to speak up about the opportunity that this great nation has afforded them, they are labeled as sell-outs and tokens. When emotions run high enough, those labels are tossed aside, and pundits outright question their thought process for landing on conservative values.
So does the left think black people are stupid? Yes.
Parker Beauregard writes cultural commentary for ordinary Americans. He has been published on American Thinker, Liberty Nation, Right Wire Report
Don’t kid yourself. Don’t be fooled by the bravado. Democrats behind the scenes are scared and getting more desperate by the day because there are so many signs of a coming Donald Trump victory.
The signs are everywhere.
Polls show an overwhelming majority of Americans don’t want to defund police. They want law and order. They support police. Even 80 percent of black voters overwhelmingly disagree with defunding police.
Does anyone with a brain or common sense think this is a good sign for Joe Biden or Democrats? Do you think all these Americans who support the police, want more law and order, and want more police funding are leaning to “law and order Trump” or “defund the police Joe Biden”?
Polls show 83 percent of Americans support President Trump and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Dr. Ben Carson’s ending of former President Obama’s program designed to fill the suburbs with high-density low-income housing, bringing crime and drugs to the neighborhoods of suburban moms and dads.
Does anyone with a brain or common sense think this is a good sign for Biden or Democrats? Do you think these millions of suburban American homeowners who don’t want to see their home value destroyed or their neighborhood turned into war zones like Chicago, Detroit or Baltimore are going to vote enthusiastically for Joe Biden?
Remember, Biden’s presidential platform actually puts in writing his goal to supercharge Obama’s “destroy the suburbs” program. Biden wants to bring Frankenstein back to life, except twice as big. Goodbye to your safe, peaceful suburban life. Trump wants to protect your neighborhood. I wonder who suburban moms and dads will vote for.But there are more signs.
The race to escape the big-city crime wave, rioting, and looting is accelerating at warp speed. Ask any suburban realtor. Ask any moving company. Everyone with any kind of ability to move is “getting out of Dodge.” The escape from Democratic-controlled big cities is so huge it is the trend of 2020.
Even liberal New Yorkers are running for their lives. Shootings in New York City were up 76 percent from Jan. 1 to Aug. 2, compared with the same period in 2019. Murders are skyrocketing. The purchase of body armor such as bulletproof vests is reportedly up by over 80 percent in NYC. You think these people are voting for Biden?
But it’s not just New York. Everyone is selling their homes and moving away from every Democratic big city — Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis. Defund police? The only group getting defunded is Democratic politicians and government bureaucrats. Bye-bye to tax revenues.
Does anyone with a brain or common sense think this is a good sign for Biden or Democrats? Do you really believe most of these people are running for their lives from deep-blue Democratic cities for the safety of red Republican suburbs just so they can vote for Biden and the Democrats?
According to Rasmussen, 72 percent of likely voters are concerned about the growing violent protests nationwide. Sixty-two percent say it will affect their vote. Do you think this is a good sign for Democrats who support the Black Lives Matter and antifa movements and claim there is no violence?
And then there’s the guns. America is selling out of guns. And bullets, too. Since COVID-19 and the rioting struck, practically every gun and bullet in this country has been bought up. All-time gun sale records have been broken month after month. Everyone is locked and loaded.
Does anyone with a brain or common sense think this is a good sign for Biden or Democrats? Do you think any of these record-setting gun buyers is voting for Basement Biden, Kamala Harris, and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, Biden’s gun czar who would be in charge of forcefully taking away our guns?
Then there’s Harris. CNN’s latest poll shows a 21-point shift away from Biden among non-white voters after he picked Harris as vice president. Yes, I said non-white voters.
Finally, there’s the Democratic National Convention. After hearing from all the big guns — Michelle and Barack Obama; Bill and Hillary Clinton; Jill Biden; and Harris — Thursday’s Rasmussen poll shows Trump moving from 47% to 51% approval. Clearly, the more Democrats speak, the more voters are repelled.
Remember when then-President Jimmy Carter led Republican nominee Ronald Reagan by 10 points during the summer of 1980? Reagan won in a historic landslide.
Remember when Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis was up by 17 points over Republican nominee George H.W. Bush after the Democratic convention? Bush won the electoral vote 426 to 111.
Don’t look now … but it’s about to happen again. The signs are everywhere. Trump is about to win in an electoral landslide.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on READ THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES. ALL SIGNS POINT TO A TRUMP VICTORY, EXCEPT THOSE PUSHED BY THE LIBERAL MEDIA AND LEFT PROPAGANDISTS
The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) held a press conference today to announce the successful rescue and location of 39 children from sex trafficking rings in/around the Atlanta Georgia area. [Video and press release]https://www.youtube.com/embed/DbfDGHs0S14?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&start=330&wmode=transparent
.
Washington, DC – The U.S. Marshals Service Missing Child Unit, in conjunction with the agency’s Southeast Regional Fugitive Task Force, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and Georgia state and local agencies, led a two-week operation in August in Atlanta and Macon, Georgia, to rescue endangered missing children.
“Operation Not Forgotten” resulted in the rescue of 26 children, the safe location of 13 children and the arrest of nine criminal associates. Additionally, investigators cleared 26 arrest warrants and filed additional charges for alleged crimes related to sex trafficking, parental kidnapping, registered sex offender violations, drugs and weapons possession, and custodial interference. The 26 warrants cleared included 19 arrest warrants for a total of nine individuals arrested, some of whom had multiple warrants.
“The U.S. Marshals Service is fully committed to assisting federal, state, and local agencies with locating and recovering endangered missing children, in addition to their primary fugitive apprehension mission,” said Director of the Marshals Service Donald Washington. “The message to missing children and their families is that we will never stop looking for you.”
These missing children were considered to be some of the most at-risk and challenging recovery cases in the area, based on indications of high-risk factors such as victimization of child sex trafficking, child exploitation, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and medical or mental health conditions. Other children were located at the request of law enforcement to ensure their wellbeing. USMS investigators were able to confirm each child’s location in person and assure their safety and welfare.
The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 enhanced the U.S. Marshals’ authority to assist federal, state, and local law enforcement with the recovery of missing, endangered or abducted children, regardless of whether a fugitive or sex offender was involved. The Marshals established a Missing Child Unit to oversee and manage the implementation of its enhanced authority under the act. (read more)
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on THE HORROR! THE HORROR! THE HORROR!
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.