GLOBAL POVERTY ACT IS BACK… IS BILL GATES THE WORLD’S RICHEST USEFUL IDIOT?  Tom DeWeese August 26,2020 I wrote this article and published it in the DeWeese Report back in January of 2012. Now we see the full Bill Gates agenda for changing the structure and culture of the civilized, free world. But here’s some insight on how he got started down that path, and where the ideas originally came from. Considering the source of that agenda and its announced drive to reduce world populations, I would be very leary about letting anyone put a Gates-created needle in my arm.   He might be a whiz kid at creating computer software, but beyond that Bill Gates has proven time and again that he hasn’t a clue about why or how freedom works. He constantly teams up with anti-free market types like the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) to produce “educational programs” in his software packages, misdirecting unsuspecting children with political propaganda. In 2002 he gave the NWF $600,000 worth of software to help these environmental radicals run their programs to block the drilling of American oil. Apparently Gates doesn’t understand that he needs oil to create power to run computers. Most recently his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated $3 million to eight universities to reinvent the flush toilet. Environmentalists call that device “one of the world’s most destructive habits.” Clearly Gates is a captive of his own wealth, suffering the usual rich man’s guilt over being rich – rushing full speed ahead to “give back to the world.” Funny how such giving back always seems to mean supporting socialist causes with money gained from the free market. Up till now, Gates has just been giving his own money voluntarily. Even if it’s to bad causes, he is certainly relatively free to use his money anyway he chooses. Now, however, his misguided meddling is about to involve the misdirecting of everyone’s income, and so the world’s richest useful idiot just became dangerous to freedom. In November 2019, as part of the G20 summit, Gates, representing his foundation, presented a report on a plan to eradicate world poverty. Said Gates, “I am honored to have been given this important opportunity. My report will address the financing needed to achieve maximum progress on the Millennium Development Goals, and to make faster progress on development over the next decade.”  Gate’s report proposes a financial transaction tax (FTT) on tobacco, aviation, fuel and carbon (energy), to be enforced by all members of the G20 nations. The financial transaction tax has been excitedly talked about in the halls of the UN for a decade. Called the Tobin Tax, named after a Yale economist who dreamed it up, FTT would give the UN almost unlimited funding by taxing every stock and monetary transaction in the world. Gates didn’t just dream this up on his own accord. He is actually resurrecting a bill introduced in Congress in 2008 by then Senator Barack Obama. It was called the Global Poverty Act. Obama introduced the bill during his one abbreviated term in the U.S. Senate. The bill was one of the only pieces of legislation ever introduced by Senator Barack Obama, and it wasn’t just a compassionate bit of fluff that Obama dreamed up to help the poor of the world. This bill was directly tied to the United Nations and served as little more than a shake down of American taxpayers in a massive wealth redistribution scheme. The Global Poverty Act would provide the United Nations with 0.7% of the United States gross national product. Estimates indicated that would add up to at least $845 billion of taxpayer money into UN coffers, to be spent (or wasted) by UN bureaucrats. The excuse for the taxing, of course, is to help end poverty in third world countries. The bill died in Congress in 2008 after passing unanimously in the House. Now Bill Gates has resurrected it. Of course the United States has had an ongoing program of supplying billions of dollars in foreign aid and assistance to the poor for decades. In addition, the U.S. pays most of the bills at the UN for its many unworkable poverty programs. So what’s new about the Global Poverty Act, and why is it dangerous? First, some history that led up to the Global Poverty Act. In 1999 and 2000 non-governmental organizations, NGOs held numerous meetings around the world to write what became known as the Charter for Global Democracy. The document was prepared as a blue print for achieving global governance. In reality it was a charter for the abolition of individual freedom, national sovereignty and limited government. The Charter for Global Democracy outlined its goals in 12 detailed “principles:” Principle One called for the consolidation of all international agencies under the direct authority of the UN. Principle Two called for UN regulation of all transnational corporations and financial institutions, requiring an “international code of conduct” concerning the environment and labor standards. Principle Three explored various schemes to create independent revenue sources for the UN – meaning UN taxes including fees on all international monetary transactions, taxes on aircraft flights in the skies, and on shipping fuels, and licensing of what the UN called the “global commons,” meaning use of air, water and natural resources. The Law of the Sea Treaty fits this category. Principle Four would restructure the UN by eliminating the veto power and permanent member status on the Security Council. Such a move would almost completely eliminate U.S. influence and power in the world body. In turn Principle Four called for the creation of an “Assembly of the People” which would be populated by hand-picked non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which are nothing more than political groups with their own agendas (the UN calls NGOs “civil society”). Now, the UN says these NGO’s will be the representatives of the “people” and the Assembly of the People will become the new power of the UN. Principle Five would authorize a standing UN army. Principle six would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies “as part of a multinational global security system” under the authority of the UN. Principle Seven would require individual and national compliance with all UN “Human rights” treaties and declarations. Principle Eight would activate the UN Criminal Court and make it compulsory for all nations — now achieved. Principle Nine called for a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring “Sustainable Development.” Principle Ten would establish an International Environmental Court Principle Eleven demanded an international declaration stating that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a “high level action team” to allocate carbon emissions based on equal per-capita rights – The Kyoto Global Warming Treaty in action. Principle Twelve demanded the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions and for the “equitable sharing” of global resources, as allocated by the UN – here is where Obama’s Global Poverty Act comes in. Specifically, the Charter for Global Democracy was intended to give the UN domain over all of the earth’s land, air and seas. In addition it would give the UN the power to control all natural resources, wild life, and energy sources, even radio waves. Such control would allow the UN to place taxes on everything from development; to fishing; to air travel; to shipping. Anything that could be defined as using the earth’s resources would be subject to UN use-taxes. Coincidentally, all twelve principles came directly from the UN’s Commission on Global Governance. There was one major problem with the Charter for Global Democracy, at least as far as the UN was concerned. It was too honest and straightforward. Overt action displeases the high-order thinking skills of UN diplomats. The UN likes to keep things fuzzy and gray so as not to scare off the natives. That way there is less chance of screaming headlines of a pending takeover by the UN. So, by the time the UN’s Millennium Summit rolled around in September 2000, things weren’t quite so clear. At the Summit, attended by literally every head of state and world leader, including then-president Bill Clinton, the name of the Charter had been changed to the Millennium Declaration and the language had been toned down to sound more like suggestions and ideas. Then those “suggestions” were put together in the “Millennium Declaration” in the name of all of the heads of state. No vote or debate was allowed — just acclamation by world leaders who basically said nothing. And the deed was done. The UN had its marching orders for the new Millennium. Now the principles were called “Millennium Goals,” and there were eight instead of twelve. Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty;Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education; Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women; Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality; Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health;Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases; Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability; Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development. Yes, these are sneaky guys, well trained in the art of saying nothing. Who could oppose such noble goals? The Millennium Project, which was set up to achieve the “goals” says on its website that it intends to “end poverty by 2015.” A noble goal, indeed. So what happened to the 12 Charter principles? Take a hard look – they are all still there. Principles One, Two, and Twelve are right there in Goal 8 – to develop a global partnership for development. Now almost every world organization such as the World Bank carries a section on their web sites calling for “Millennium Development Goals” which control international banking and loan policy. They set policy goals for each country and sometimes communities to measure if nations are keeping their promise to implement the Millennium goals. Principle Seven is clearly Goal 3, the only way to assure Gender Equality is to enforce compliance with UN Human Rights treaties. Principle Eight has already been achieved. Principle Nine is Goal 7. Al Gore is doing his best to enforce Principle Eleven. Global Warming, no matter how well the theory is debunked, just won’t go away because it is one of the Millennium Goals. And then there is Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act. Can you see which Principle that is? Of course, Principle 12 and Goal 1. Obama’s 2008 bill specifically mentioned the Millennium Goals as its guide and the 0.7% of GNP is right out of UN documents. In order to eradicate poverty by 2015, they say, every industrial nation must pony up 0.7% of their GNP to the UN for use in eradicating poverty. The UN is now becoming an international collection agency, pressing to collect the promises the world leaders made at the Millennium Summit. The UN wants the cash. In 2005 former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, “Developed countries that have not already done so should establish timetables to achieve the 0.7% target of gross national income for official development assistance by no later than 2015…” At the Summit in 2000, the UN set clear goals to establish its power over sovereign nations and to enforce the greatest redistribution of wealth scheme ever perpetrated on the world. Now it has the Criminal Court; Sustainable Development (Agenda 21) is fast becoming official policy in every corner of the nation—only today we call it “going green;” and there is a full court press on to enforce Global Warming policy, in spite of the fact that there is now overwhelming evidence pouring out of the scientific community to fully debunk the scam. Obama introduced the Global Poverty Act as he campaigned for the Presidency with the obvious and clear intention of showcasing the then little known Senator as a world leader. But the bill died in the Senate. Now, Bill Gates is proving his “useful idiot” status (a term coined by Lenin to describe capitalists who would sell the rope to hang capitalism), by serving as Obama’s lackey to resurrect the Global Poverty Act. And right on cue, just after Bill Gates made his report to the G20 Summit calling for a financial transaction tax, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) introduced legislation to put a tax on “certain trading activities undertaken by banking and financial firms.” The bills, of course, are the Tobin Tax and in line with Gate’s report. Clearly, Obama needed to show that, under his leadership, the United States is falling in line with the Millennium Declaration and its 2015 deadline for implementation. Truth, science, and American taxpayer interests be hanged, as Bill Gates offered the rope, Harkin and DeFazio provided the knot, and Obama got to pretend to be a “world” leader. Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence. Email Link   https://conta.cc/31uefnB

GLOBAL POVERTY ACT IS BACK… IS BILL GATES THE WORLD’S RICHEST USEFUL IDIOT? Tom DeWeeseAugust 26,2020 I wrote this article and published it in the DeWeese Report back in January of 2012. Now we see the full Bill Gates agenda for changing the structure and culture of the civilized, free world. But here’s some insight on how he got started down that path, and where the ideas originally came from. Considering the source of that agenda and its announced drive to reduce world populations, I would be very leary about letting anyone put a Gates-created needle in my arm.  He might be a whiz kid at creating computer software, but beyond that Bill Gates has proven time and again that he hasn’t a clue about why or how freedom works. He constantly teams up with anti-free market types like the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) to produce “educational programs” in his software packages, misdirecting unsuspecting children with political propaganda. In 2002 he gave the NWF $600,000 worth of software to help these environmental radicals run their programs to block the drilling of American oil. Apparently Gates doesn’t understand that he needs oil to create power to run computers. Most recently his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donated $3 million to eight universities to reinvent the flush toilet. Environmentalists call that device “one of the world’s most destructive habits.” Clearly Gates is a captive of his own wealth, suffering the usual rich man’s guilt over being rich – rushing full speed ahead to “give back to the world.” Funny how such giving back always seems to mean supporting socialist causes with money gained from the free market. Up till now, Gates has just been giving his own money voluntarily. Even if it’s to bad causes, he is certainly free to use his money anyway he chooses. Now, however, his misguided meddling is about to involve the misdirecting of everyone’s income, and so the world’s richest useful idiot just became dangerous to freedom. In November, as part of the G20 summit, Gates, representing his foundation, presented a report on a plan to eradicate world poverty. Said Gates, “I am honored to have been given this important opportunity. My report will address the financing needed to achieve maximum progress on the Millennium Development Goals, and to make faster progress on development over the next decade.” Gate’s report proposes a financial transaction tax (FTT) on tobacco, aviation, fuel and carbon (energy), to be enforced by all members of the G20 nations. The financial transaction tax has been excitedly talked about in the halls of the UN for a decade. Called the Tobin Tax, named after a Yale economist who dreamed it up, FTT would give the UN almost unlimited funding by taxing every stock and monetary transaction in the world. Gates didn’t just dream this up on his own accord. He is actually resurrecting legislation a bill introduced in 2008 by then Senator Barack Obama. It was called the Global Poverty Act. Obama introduced the bill during his one abbreviated term in the U.S. Senate. The bill was one of the only pieces of legislation ever introduced by Senator Barack Obama, and it wasn’t just a compassionate bit of fluff that Obama dreamed up to help the poor of the world. This bill was directly tied to the United Nations and served as little more than a shake down of American taxpayers in a massive wealth redistribution scheme. The Global Poverty Act would provide the United Nations with 0.7% of the United States gross national product. Estimates indicated that would add up to at least $845 billion of taxpayer money into UN coffers, to be spent (or wasted) by UN bureaucrats. The excuse for the taxing, of course, is to help end poverty in third world countries. The bill died in Congress in 2008 after passing unanimously in the House. Now Bill Gates has resurrected it. Of course the United States has had an ongoing program of supplying billions of dollars in foreign aid and assistance to the poor for decades. In addition, the U.S. pays most of the bills at the UN for its many unworkable poverty programs. So what’s new about the Global Poverty Act, and why is it dangerous? First, some history that led up to the Global Poverty Act. In 1999 and 2000 non-governmental organizations, NGOs held numerous meetings around the world to write what became known as the Charter for Global Democracy. The document was prepared as a blue print for achieving global governance. In reality it was a charter for the abolition of individual freedom, national sovereignty and limited government. The Charter for Global Democracy outlined its goals in 12 detailed “principles:”Principle One called for the consolidation of all international agencies under the direct authority of the UN. Principle Two called for UN regulation of all transnational corporations and financial institutions, requiring an “international code of conduct” concerning the environment and labor standards. Principle Three explored various schemes to create independent revenue sources for the UN – meaning UN taxes including fees on all international monetary transactions, taxes on aircraft flights in the skies, and on shipping fuels, and licensing of what the UN called the “global commons,” meaning use of air, water and natural resources. The Law of the Sea Treaty fits this category. Principle Four would restructure the UN by eliminating the veto power and permanent member status on the Security Council. Such a move would almost completely eliminate U.S. influence and power in the world body. In turn Principle Four called for the creation of an “Assembly of the People” which would be populated by hand-picked non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which are nothing more than political groups with their own agendas (the UN calls NGOs “civil society”). Now, the UN says these NGO’s will be the representatives of the “people” and the Assembly of the People will become the new power of the UN. Principle Five would authorize a standing UN army. Principle six would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies “as part of a multinational global security system” under the authority of the UN. Principle Seven would require individual and national compliance with all UN “Human rights” treaties and declarations. Principle Eight would activate the UN Criminal Court and make it compulsory for all nations — now achieved. Principle Nine called for a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by ensuring “Sustainable Development.” Principle Ten would establish an International Environmental Court Principle Eleven demanded an international declaration stating that climate change is an essential global security interest that requires the creation of a “high level action team” to allocate carbon emissions based on equal per-capita rights – The Kyoto Global Warming Treaty in action. Principle Twelve demanded the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions and for the “equitable sharing” of global resources, as allocated by the UN – here is where Obama’s Global Poverty Act comes in. Specifically, the Charter for Global Democracy was intended to give the UN domain over all of the earth’s land, air and seas. In addition it would give the UN the power to control all natural resources, wild life, and energy sources, even radio waves. Such control would allow the UN to place taxes on everything from development; to fishing; to air travel; to shipping. Anything that could be defined as using the earth’s resources would be subject to UN use-taxes. Coincidentally, all twelve principles came directly from the UN’s Commission on Global Governance. There was one major problem with the Charter for Global Democracy, at least as far as the UN was concerned. It was too honest and straightforward. Overt action displeases the high-order thinking skills of UN diplomats. The UN likes to keep things fuzzy and gray so as not to scare off the natives. That way there is less chance of screaming headlines of a pending takeover by the UN. So, by the time the UN’s Millennium Summit rolled around in September 2000, things weren’t quite so clear. At the Summit, attended by literally every head of state and world leader, including then-president Bill Clinton, the name of the Charter had been changed to the Millennium Declaration and the language had been toned down to sound more like suggestions and ideas. Then those “suggestions” were put together in the “Millennium Declaration” in the name of all of the heads of state. No vote or debate was allowed — just acclamation by world leaders who basically said nothing. And the deed was done. The UN had its marching orders for the new Millennium. Now the principles were called “Millennium Goals,” and there were eight instead of twelve. Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty;Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education; Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women; Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality; Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health;Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases; Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability; Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development. Yes, these are sneaky guys, well trained in the art of saying nothing. Who could oppose such noble goals? The Millennium Project, which was set up to achieve the “goals” says on its website that it intends to “end poverty by 2015.” A noble goal, indeed. So what happened to the 12 Charter principles? Take a hard look – they are all still there. Principles One, Two, and Twelve are right there in Goal 8 – to develop a global partnership for development. Now almost every world organization such as the World Bank carries a section on their web sites calling for “Millennium Development Goals” which control international banking and loan policy. They set policy goals for each country and sometimes communities to measure if nations are keeping their promise to implement the Millennium goals. Principle Seven is clearly Goal 3, the only way to assure Gender Equality is to enforce compliance with UN Human Rights treaties. Principle Eight has already been achieved. Principle Nine is Goal 7. Al Gore is doing his best to enforce Principle Eleven. Global Warming, no matter how well the theory is debunked, just won’t go away because it is one of the Millennium Goals. And then there is Barack Obama’s Global Poverty Act. Can you see which Principle that is? Of course, Principle 12 and Goal 1. Obama’s 2008 bill specifically mentioned the Millennium Goals as its guide and the 0.7% of GNP is right out of UN documents. In order to eradicate poverty by 2015, they say, every industrial nation must pony up 0.7% of their GNP to the UN for use in eradicating poverty. The UN is now becoming an international collection agency, pressing to collect the promises the world leaders made at the Millennium Summit. The UN wants the cash. In 2005 former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said, “Developed countries that have not already done so should establish timetables to achieve the 0.7% target of gross national income for official development assistance by no later than 2015…” At the Summit in 2000, the UN set clear goals to establish its power over sovereign nations and to enforce the greatest redistribution of wealth scheme ever perpetrated on the world. Now it has the Criminal Court; Sustainable Development (Agenda 21) is fast becoming official policy in every corner of the nation—only today we call it “going green;” and there is a full court press on to enforce Global Warming policy, in spite of the fact that there is now overwhelming evidence pouring out of the scientific community to fully debunk the scam. Obama introduced the Global Poverty Act as he campaigned for the Presidency with the obvious and clear intention of showcasing the then little known Senator as a world leader. But the bill died in the Senate. Now, Bill Gates is proving his “useful idiot” status (a term coined by Lenin to describe capitalists who would sell the rope to hang capitalism), by serving as Obama’s lackey to resurrect the Global Poverty Act. And right on cue, just after Bill Gates made his report to the G20 Summit calling for a financial transaction tax, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) introduced legislation to put a tax on “certain trading activities undertaken by banking and financial firms.” The bills, of course, are the Tobin Tax and in line with Gate’s report. Clearly, Obama needed to show that, under his leadership, the United States is falling in line with the Millennium Declaration and its 2015 deadline for implementation. Truth, science, and American taxpayer interests be hanged, as Bill Gates offered the rope, Harkin and DeFazio provided the knot, and Obama got to pretend to be a “world” leader. Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence. Email Link   https://conta.cc/31uefnB

AUGUST 26, 2020

The Genius of Father Martin

JESSE B. RUSSELL

CRISIS MAGAZINE

The Catholic blogosphere and Catholic Twitter are abuzz with the clicking and tapping of comments on Father James Martin, S.J.,’s August 20 benediction at the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee.

Some have complained that Father Martin’s inclusion on the last night of the DNC is a hypocritical and inconsistent contrast to the treatment of Priests for Life National Director Father Frank Pavone, who was asked by unnamed Church authorities to withdraw himself from an advisory position on President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign. While Father Martin’s benediction is not an explicit endorsement of former Vice President Joe Biden, it at least suggests Father Martin’s benediction of the progressive Catholic politician seeking the Democratic nomination.

Choosing Father Martin to offer a benediction at the DNC convention was, however, an act of genius on behalf of both the Democratic National Committee as well as the wider progressive Catholic establishment in America of which Father Martin is one of if not the most prominent members.

While constantly derided and challenged by right-of-center Catholics as a progressive or dissident Catholic potentially leading millions of Catholics into scandal and spiritual ruin, Father Martin is, in fact, much like former President Bill Clinton (who also has appeared at the DNC convention). He’s a tactful and skilled politician who knows just what to say and when. One might even call Father Martin—again, like former President Bill Clinton—a rhetorical genius.https://secureaddisplay.com/i/view/js/?Viewable=0&isMobile=0&AULU=31049420180502T2200289306460AB42454C400A8A16937CB3EB93D7&cb=1598457946937&ccvid=942154390&pvid=1926897010

While President Clinton represents, at least apparently, a more moderate and level-headed Democratic Party of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, Father Martin is representative of a new breed of liberal Catholics who are much smarter than their predecessors.

The earlier generation of liberal Catholics in America and throughout the wider West attempted to do too much too fast and positioned themselves as intellectual adversaries of the Church’s traditional teaching. European theologians like Fathers Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Kung, and Edward Schillebeeckx were intellectuals whose works came under examination by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Holy Office, and which at least appeared to challenge key Catholic doctrinal issues. By doing so they, and American writers like Fathers Charles Curran and Matthew Fox, put themselves at odds vis-à-vis the Church.

During the heady days of the 1960s and 1970s, such rebelliousness was attractive to young, liberal Baby Boomers mesmerized by the belief that they were living in the emergent Age of Aquarius.

However, following the conservative Catholic American renaissance inaugurated by Pope John Paul II’s 1993 World Youth Day, direct opposition to the Church has fallen out of fashion and, for the most part, earlier generations of Gen-Xers and Millennials have simply left the Church, as opposed to practicing the left-wing version of “recognize and resist.”

Although there has been a tremendous renaissance of traditional Catholicism among young Catholics, there are many Catholics who find themselves caught between two worlds. These younger Catholics, the children or the grandchildren of Baby Boomers, have (along with their “post-Evangelical” counterparts) combined progressive politics with elements of Catholic piety and have earned the tweetable moniker of “Left Caths.”

Unlike the earlier generation of post–Vatican II radicals, the Left Caths focus on the presentation of their ideas rather than intellectual content. They claim (perhaps sincerely) not to be combating the Church’s teaching, but rather to be presenting it in a more compassionate and inclusive manner.

The Left Cath method of form over function has been deeply attractive to many American Catholics who find themselves caught up in the recent resurgence of progressive politics that itself is more about branding than content.

America, despite our sincere and strong tradition of the belles lettres, has never been about the intellectual life. It has been much more about business—and show business, in particular—than it has been about heady theological and philosophical issues.

Father James Martin is a member of the off-Broadway production company Labyrinth Theatre, making him the perfect face of the Left Caths to present at the 2020 convention. He can make it seem as though one can still be a pious, pro-life Catholic and vote for a political party that is fundamentally at odds with traditional Catholic teaching on life issues, gender ideology, marriage, the liberty of the Church, and a whole laundry list of political and moral errors.

In the end, it is difficult to gauge what Father Martin really believes. Tempting as it may be to do otherwise, charity demands that we give him the benefit of the doubt.

Nonetheless, Father Martin and the other Left Caths, by creating the impression that faithful Catholics can support politicians many of whose policies radically diverge from Church teaching, have proven themselves to be a tremendous boon for the Democratic Party and the radical left writ large. If we want to win at politics, conservative and traditionalist Catholics must follow the method of the Left Caths and get a lot smarter.

[Photo credit: James Martin, SJ/Twitter.com]

Tagged as 2020 election, Democratic National Convention, Fr. James Martin S.J., Joe Biden

CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

Did Pope John Paul II Teach that Francis is an “Explicit Atheist”?

August 26, 2020

“When mortal men try to live without God, they infallibly succumb to megalomania or eratomania or both. The raised fist or the raised phallus; Nietzsche or D. H. Lawrence”  – Malcolm Muggeridge

Certain teachings in Amoris Laetitia are exactly the opposite of Church doctrine in Familiaris Consortio as well as “explicitly atheist” and deny the existence of objective truth according to Veritatis Splendor.

Father Raymond J. de Souza said:

“Veritatis Splendor, entitled ‘Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of Its Power,’ warns precisely against the view that the demands of the moral life are too difficult and cannot be lived with the help of God’s grace. Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia appears to be exactly what St. John Paul II had in mind in writing Veritatis Splendor.“
[http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/debating-amoris-laetitia-a-look-aheaquestionsXOIYwi]

The Pope’s semi-official newspaper L’Osservatore Romano wrote:
“There are complex situations where the choice of living “as brothers and sisters” becomes humanly impossible and give rise to greater harm (see AL, note 329).”[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor wrote:
“Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom to such an extent that it becomes an absolute… This is the direction taken by doctrines which have lost the sense of the transcendent or which are explicitly atheist. The  individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions about good and evil… But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear.“[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Pope John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio wrote:

“This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]
 Francis and the papal inner circle appear to have redefined mortal sin and adultery in a way that is contrary to the 2,000 year infallibly doctrine of the Catholic Church.

They redefine adultery as a “irregular relationship” and say mortal sin is not mortal sin because of the ultimacy of conscience.

This redefinition of Catholic conscience tells the murderer, rapist, sex abuser, the person in adultery or anyone in objective mortal sin that they are not in mortal sin if they are at “peace” with it, if the sinful behavior is “humanly impossible” to change, “if they can’t change their sinful behavior” or don’t know it is wrong. 

Under these conditions, they say those in objective mortal sin may receive Holy Communion without forming their conscience and changing their sinful behavior.

Their redefinition of conscience is wrong. As St. Thomas said “An erroneous conscience may bind, but it does not excuse” as the great moral philosopher Ralph McInerny wrote:

“I think murder is wrong, but make up your own mind…It is pretty clear that we do not really accept the ultimacy of conscience in this way. That the rapist and the one raped have different views on the morality of rape does not much interest us when we consider the kind of deed it is.”

“Each agent is obligated to follow his conscience, but this is not tantamount to saying that every agent has a well formed conscience. It is erroneous to believe that theft is permitted. It is wrong to hold that adultery is all right…If it is erroneous, we will be interested in his changing it. Indeed, we often prevent people from acting on their real or alleged views when those views are erroneous. Professional thieves are not considered to have an interesting and defensible concept of private property. As Thomas put it, an erroneous conscience may bind, but it does not excuse.” (Ralph McInerny, “Ethica Thomistica,” 1982, 1997, page 110-111)

Carl Olson wrote that Amoris Laetitia moves Nietzsche-like beyond even invincible ignorance or a erroreous conscience to the depravity of making the individual conscience a “supreme tribunal of moral judgement… in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear”:

“Amoris Laetitia, especially chapter 8… As Dr. E. Christian Brugger argued in these pages back in April 2016, remarking on AL 305: ‘In this passage, the German bishops get all they want’:”

“But the passage does not presume that the sinner is in invincible ignorance or that the pastor supposes that. The passage supposes that people who are objectively committing adultery can know they are ‘in God’s grace’, and that their pastor can know it too… The pastor must help them find peace in their situation, and assist them to receive “the Church’s help”, which (note 351 makes clear) includes ‘the help of the sacraments… ‘”

“Pastors should help them discern if their situation is acceptable, even if it is ‘objectively’ sinful, so they can return to the sacraments.”
[http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/5346/a_malta_laetitia.aspx]

Every Pope and saint in the history of the Catholic Church would have rejected the above passage of Amoris Laetitia.

Every Pope and saint in history would say every Catholic is obliged to have a well formed conscience and have a firm amendment not to commit mortal sin in order to receive Holy Communion. 

The infallible Church doctrine of Trent teaches that God gives everyone the grace to repent and overcome sinful behavior. 

These Catholic Church doctrines can’t be redefined, even by the Pope, because they are part of Revelation.

Catholics who are open to the redefinition of “mercy” to mean the conscience is the supreme tribunal may cease to be Christians because they deny that the Incarnate God-man Jesus Christ died to save us from our sins.

Pope John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendor warns against this passage of Amoris Laetitia in the third part called “Lest the Cross of Christ Be Emptied of its Power.”

The conscience as supreme tribunal denies mercy because if there is no objective sin to be forgiven and one doesn’t have by grace the power to overcome sin then the cross of Christ is emptied of its power.

Francis and the papal inner circle who are ostracizing the Dubia Cardinals for questioning the parts of Amoris Laetitia that reject Veritatis Splendor are apparently rejecting the cross of Christ and saying it has lost its power.

They talk a lot about atheistic secular issues and social work, but rarely or never about life after the death of the body, salvation and damnation.

Francis and his inner circle say Jesus had authority because he was (past tense) a servant, but rarely or never that Jesus had authority because he is (eternal now) God.

One reason that they rarely or never talk about the four last things is that apparently in making individual conscience supreme, they deny truth, the authority of God and implicitly the existence of God.

Pope John Paul II said in Veritatis Splendor:

“Certain currents of modern thought… are explicitly atheist. The individual conscience is accorded the status of a supreme tribunal of moral judgment… about good and evil… in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear.”

This may be a valid question to ask Francis and the papal inner circle who promote these redefinition:

Do you even believe in the Incarnation and salvation, as every Pope and saint in history has believed, since you appear to deny the very words of Jesus Christ and his Church that He died to save us from our sins?

John Paul II taught that anyone who thinks as you do on the individual conscience being a supreme tribunal is a “explicit atheist.”

California ApocalyptoPower outages, fires, water shortages, rising taxes, crumbling and congested highways, dismal schools, lawlessness …
By VICTOR DAVIS HANSONAugust 25, 2020 
It is now August in California.
Green NapalmSo we can expect the following from our postmodern state government. There are the now-normal raging wildfires in the coastal and Sierra foothills. And they will be greeted as if they are not characteristic threats of 500 years of settled history, but leveraged as proof of global warming as well as the state’s abject inability to put them out.
When the inept state can’t extinguish them as it has in the past, it suggests that it’s more “natural” to let them burn. Jerry Brown’s team told us that the drought’s toll — millions of dead trees and tens of millions of acres of parched grass and calcified shrubs on hillsides — provided a natural source of food and shelter for bugs and birds and thus need not be grazed or thinned or harvested. And so the wages of drought could be in a sense good for an “ecosystem” that otherwise proved to be green napalm for the people of foothill communities.
We can expect power outages, because we don’t believe in releasing clean heat to make energy. Note that we do not mind people heating up in their 108-degree apartments without power. The planet is always more important than the non-privileged people who inhabit it.For some reason, solar panels don’t create much power when the state is engulfed in dust, haze, and smoke.
Note the synergism of the California postmodern apocalypse: The hotter it gets, the more fires burn on ecological fuel and hillside natural “compost,” the smokier the air becomes, the less efficiently California’s solar pathway to the future generates, the more power outages ensue, the more real people are put in danger from either being incinerated by fire or suffocated by smoke or boiled inside without air conditioning. Last week, I asked an elderly patient at the allergy clinic whether, in the 108-degree heat, he preferred to stay outside to breathe smoke and haze, or stay inside his uncooled apartment. He gave a novel answer: He didn’t care about the power outages since he couldn’t pay the exorbitant electricity charges anyway to turn on his air conditioner. And he added that, in California these days, you can’t tell whether mask wearers are fighting the virus, the smoke, or the police.
We can expect shortages of water, because the state blocks new reservoirs and aqueducts, and drains those we do have to send millions of acre-feet to the sea. State officials now suddenly stop bashing “last generation” hydroelectric power as not really “green” (after all, dams are not quite “natural”) and instead try to use every last drop of stored water to generate hydroelectricity amid brownouts, scorching temperatures, and fires.
We can expect lots of crime, because in fear of COVID-19 and in line with no-to-little bail policies, lots of criminals roam our streets. The state was once far safer after the adoption of the three-strikes law, but as crime radically declined, the imprisoned criminal, not his prey, was recalibrated as a victim. Gun sales are soaring, in the bluest of states, as if carjackers and home invaders just might not extend exemption to the woke.
California, as some of the Democratic primary candidates bragged last year, is the progressive model of the future: a once-innovative rich state that is now a civilization in near ruins. The nation should watch us this election year and learn of its possible future.
After one of the primary debates in late 2019, I drove to San Francisco. On checking into the hotel, I was reminded (off the record) by the officious hotel doorman of the city’s Third World protocols:
1) Do not park your car on the street, because it most surely will have its windows smashed and its contents stolen, and the police will either not respond if called or the city would not prosecute the criminal if arrested.
2) Check the soles of your shoes before entering the hotel lobby to ensure that human feces or needle remnants are not stuck to the bottoms.
3) Do not offer food/money/“help” if walking along nearby homeless corridors, given the uncertain and possibly violent reaction that such outreach might incur.
As he warned me, I kept thinking of scenes in the Hitchcock films of a 1950s San Francisco with streets that were clean and safe, with people polite and mannered. No doubt that world is written off now as racist and exploitive by the morally superior San Francisco of the woke, who 60 years later have created their own wasteland and called it civilization. Once-successful civilizations implode not only from moral laxity, debt, inflation, and luxury, but also from a sort of psychological stasis by which the bureaucracy would rather die in place as it is than change and survive.
How to Destroy a Once-Successful StateI wonder whether their high-tech world reflects or advances such moral regress? Is there some strange unexplored relationship between having sophisticated phone apps that can plot San Francisco’s walking routes to ensure they’re free of human feces, and the fact that human feces from the progressive paradise on the sidewalks are thus far more common than they were 60, 70, or 80 years ago?
Our beleaguered governor Newsom is no longer just leveraging the lockdown and boasting of the virus as “an opportunity for reimagining a more progressive era.”
Instead, he is now worried about our the Frankensteinian Green New Deal state that he, in his earlier political incarnations, helped create: “We cannot sacrifice reliability as we move on.”
That means something like, “We built so many subsidized solar and wind farms, and retired or canceled so many clean-burning natural-gas power plants, that we don’t have enough electricity for 40 million sweltering residents when the annual green napalm hits.” Who would have figured?
So Newsom has announced that his state’s shutting off the power without much warning is “unacceptable.” He fears there will be lots of blackouts if the heat wave and fires continue. Apparently, Newsom now has some doubt that we have really “move[ed] on” to a green utopia. Could someone hooked up on electrically dependent dialysis actually be more important than taking a ranting call from billionaire Tom Steyer?
I would add lots to the governor’s list of California lapses: It might have been a mistake to cancel water projects, like the raising of dams on large existing reservoirs central to the California Water Project and Central Valley project, or the construction of the planned Sites Reservoir, or the Los Banos Grandes or Temperance Flat proposed reservoirs. The Left is instead talking about destroying dams in the far north of the state that store water, generate clean electricity, and stop flooding. We haven’t seen such year-zero nihilism since Mao unleashed the Red Guard.
Some 30 million of 40 million Californians live crowded along a desert-like coastal strip from La Jolla to Berkeley, with a water storage system designed for 20 million state residents that is now woefully inadequate. Yet most in the Bay Area seem to oppose more water-transfer investments.
Their ideology dictates that “dams are bad because they are unnatural and won’t allow rivers to run to the sea as we read about in the mid 19th century.”
Their new reality answers, “How else can we supply water in a state where two-thirds of the precipitation falls where one-third of the population lives, and two-thirds live where one-third falls?”
Is not the most green of all methods of power generation, the cheapest way to store water, the best method to stop flooding, and the most scenic of opportunities for recreation a mountain reservoir that allows gravity-driven water to create electricity, ensures water will flow to the cities without much pumping, stops flooding that destroys civilization, provides water for irrigated food, and endows the middle classes with clean, natural outdoor relaxation?
Was it not a mistake, Governor Newsom, for premodern California to attempt postmodern high-speed rail?
The skeleton of a now mostly canceled high-speed-rail project looms like Stonehenge about 15 miles from where I live. The frozen overpasses remain half-built and are now stained with graffiti. They are religious totems to a now discredited post-viral, post-quarantine, post-rioting/defund-the-police urban model of cramming citizens into trains to send them into crammed stations and on into crammed elevators up to crammed offices and apartments — whose thin margin of safety and efficacy hinges on mayors such as Bill De Blasio, Ted Wheeler, and Lori Lightfoot.
On one side of the high-speed proposed corridor, Amtrak trains sit still on their side turnouts while trains on the opposite side roar by. Would it have been wiser to first create two parallel Amtrak tracks to facilitate nonstop train travel than spend ten times more on a pipe dream now wafting away? Again, when California cannot solve the premodern problem, it hides its impotence by futilely pursuing the postmodern fantasy.
On the other eastern parallel side, Freeway 99 is often backed up with traffic because of constant ad hoc reconstruction. The old 1960s goal of having six lanes in the state’s major central longitudinal freeway was never realized — given the Jerry Brown theory that the worse California roads became, the slower traffic would move, and thus the more that exasperated commuters would cry uncle to mass or high-speed transit.
Might it also have been smarter not to raise income taxes on top tiers to over 13 percent? After 2017, when high earners could no longer write off their property taxes and state income taxes, the real state-income-tax bite doubled. So still more of the most productive residents left the state.
Yet if the state gets its way, raising rates to over 16 percent and inaugurating a wealth tax, there will be a stampede. It is not just that the upper middle class can no longer afford coastal living at $1,000 a square foot and $15,000–$20,000 a year in “low” property taxes.
The rub is more about what they get in return: terrible roads, crumbling bridges, human-enhanced droughts, power blackouts, dismal schools that rank near the nation’s bottom, half the nation’s homeless, a third of its welfare recipients, one-fifth of the residents living below the poverty level — and more lectures from the likes of privileged Gavin Newsom on the progressive possibilities of manipulating the chaos. California enshrined the idea that the higher taxes become, the worse state services will be.
Or is the state’s suicide one Orwellian nightmarish plan? The worse California becomes, the less attractive it will be for illegal immigrants?The more who flee, the more affordable will be their abandoned homes? The fewer Californians, the less need for water and power? The more congested the ossified highways, the fewer will try to drive? The more the middle class shrinks, the more powerful the wealthy and the more dependent the poor?
The New Dark AgesThrough history, Dark Age man relies on his own arms for protection. He travels as little as possible. He trusts no stranger. He has no state service for aid. He fears disease, eats no food not his own, and does not ever sleep far from home. And he prefers only those of this tribe. In other words, whether 900 b.c. or a.d. 900 or 2020, he is a Californian.
It might have been wiser for Newsom and his predecessors to have ensured a secure border and legal, diverse, meritocratic, and measured immigration. Some 27 percent of the state was not born in the U.S. They arrived at a time when California was championing sanctuary cities and a “diversity” K–12 curriculum, and the state was treating with contempt the ancient idea of the melting pot.
The state’s implicit message to new arrivals was that the now long dead who built California — which everyone wished to come to — were racists deserving of contempt and Trotskyization, despite immigrants’ dependence on their strange 1950s and 1960 freeways, UC/CSU/JC master education plan, once-modern airports, and ingenious water projects.
The result of lots of fresh newcomers, a politicized education system, and an inert infrastructure is now that Californians live in something akin to the Greek Dark Ages. They wander about looking at the ruins of prior civilizations and seem dumbstruck at the nature and purpose of decaying monuments in their midst. The problem is not just that the state does not wish to build a new dam, but it is questionable whether it can anymore, even if it wished.
Millions drive along the California aqueduct and have no idea who built it or why, only perhaps that it gives them life. Californians love their Sierra reservoirs but haven’t a clue how hard it once was to build them or why they were ever created in the first place, much less who planned and constructed them — and who is draining them.
When so many poor came to California from abroad, many without English, a high-school diploma, or legality, the state was faced with two choices.
One was a radical plan of assimilation and integration — to ensure that their new home would be what they expected, something far superior to what they had left — and an educational curriculum that apprised newcomers of why and how California’s infrastructure, universities, and industries had led to such wealth.
Unfortunately, the state preferred the easier alternative strategy of reassuring poor and future voters that upon arrival they were victims of native-born citizens, who had rigged the system to benefit their own race and class.
The latter message of victimization and exemption only fueled immigrant poverty.
In response to the new pyramidal society, the exasperated state decided that it could hardly apply California Bay Area utopian standards of regulation and nanny-state control to the poor and the foreign-born. So they created two sets of laws: one for those who would follow them, and another consisting of exemptions for those who couldn’t or wouldn’t follow the laws.
Translated, that means millions of Californians from Sacramento to Bakersfield, from the foothills to the Sierra, live in shacks and trailers.They eat at roadside canteens without running water or bathrooms. They buy gas at rural stations that have no facilities. In other words, they are poor and do not care to follow the hyper-rules made by the rich.
In the most highly taxed state in America’s history, there is a huge black market of cash exchanges, much of it run by the poor and the recent immigrants, that the state doesn’t dare stop. When I leave my driveway, I see four “restaurants” on the side of the road, without running water or flush toilets — mobile canteens that almost always remain immobile.
On the next two intersections, I can buy flowers, homemade soft drinks, even clothes or tools — for cash only. The local “swap” meet on Sundays near my house is a huge mostly tax-free sort of outdoor ad hoc Costco.
Darkness at the End of the Tunnel?When will the madness end?
Not until Nancy Pelosi’s Napa Valley estate is without power and her boutique ice cream collections all melt.
Not until the Silicon Valley private academies are forced to diversify, as inclusion trainers recruit the very poor and undocumented from Mexico and Central America into their student bodies.
Not until the Google and Facebook employees leave their beds in parked cars and buses and break into their employers’ lobbies to sleep better at night.
Not until the Malibu “help” strike, demand unionization, and are paid for nannying, housecleaning, yardwork, and cooking at the going SEIU rates.
Not until Antifa and BLM begin prying up 2,000–2,500 terrazzo stars of all the Hollywood Walk of Fame living and dead who did not meet their 2020 woke requirements.
Not until a retired Jerry Brown is forced to commute daily to a new consulting job on the 99.
Not until the showers in the Zuckerberg estates blast out sand rather than water.
And not until Gavin Newsom finally is forced to pay own his delinquent property-tax bill and comply with tax laws governing the huge gifts bequeathed to him.
Not until they put homeless tents and shelters on the curb outside Diane Feinstein’s mansion.
Not until the homeless and paroled are put up at the Fairmont and the Mark Hopkins.
Not until Barbra Streisand gets a recording when she calls 911 after her seaside estate is besieged.
Not until Hetch Hetchy and its artificially constructed aqueducts dry up and the Bay Area has no water delivered from afar, as it resorts to its preferable natural arid state.
When all that happens, California will begin to change.
In other words — never.
Email Link  https://conta.cc/3aXjDmv

Home » News » US

Sister, soldier, surgeon, speaker: Catholic sister to address Republican convention

39Sr. Deirdre “Dede” Byrne, POSC. Credit: EWTN News Nightly

CNA Staff, Aug 24, 2020 / 04:00 pm MT (CNA).- A surgeon, retired army officer, missionary, and Catholic religious sister is among the featured speakers at this week’s Republican National Convention. The convention, which takes place over four days this week, will officially nominate President Donald Trump for reelection.

Sr. Deirdre “Dede” Byrne, POSC, was announced as a speaker by the Trump campaign on Sunday, and she has one of the most unique resumes of any speaker to address the convention. A retired colonel in the U.S. Army and a member of the Little Workers of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, Byrne has served overseas as a soldier and a missionary.

Raised in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., as one of seven children, Byrne graduated from Virginia Tech before starting medical school at Georgetown. While there, she entered the Army as a way to cover her tuition and ended up serving for 29 years as both a doctor and a surgeon. 

Following medical school, she worked from 1982 until 1985 in the field of family medicine and was a full-time Army officer from 1982 until 1989. After that, she went on to serve as a missionary from 1989 until 1990, while remaining in the Army reserve, and she completed a second residency in general surgery in 1997 – the same year in which she met Mother Teresa. Byrne was tasked to be on standby for any medical needs that might occur during the future saint’s visit to Washington. 

During her time in the military, she discerned a religious vocation, a call she has said she felt she always had, and was encouraged by a priest to find a religious order that would not require her to give up her work in the medical field. 

Her discernment led Byrne to the Little Workers of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, an Italian pontifical institute founded in the late 19th century with the primary apostolates of teaching and medical care, and present in Washington since 1954.  

Byrne entered formation with the Little Workers in 2002, and professed her first vows in 2004. While in formation, she was still a member of the Army Reserve, and was deployed three times. After a deployment to Afghanistan in 2008, her order requested that she retire from the military, which she did in 2009, before professing her final vows in 2011. 

Bryne is scheduled to speak on day three of the Republican convention and Trump has praised her work in the military and medical fields in the past. In his July 4, 2019, address called the “Salute to America,” the president featured a reference to Byrne. 

“From our earliest days, Americans of faith have uplifted our nation. This evening we’re joined by Sister Deirdre Byrne. Sister Byrne is a retired Army surgeon who served for nearly 30 years,” said Trump. 

“On September 11, 2001, the sister raced to Ground Zero, through smoke and debris, she administered first aid and comfort to all. Today Sister Byrne runs a medical clinic serving the poor in our nation’s capital. Sister, thank you for your lifetime of service. Thank you.” 

According to a profile from the GIVEN Institute, she is presently the superior of the Washington house of the Little Workers, and works at a medical clinic.

Tags: Catholic New

https://mobile.twitter.com/KarluskaP/status/1298089601664528385

Plandemic, Part 2

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

• August 25, 2020

PreviousNextWeekly Health Quiz: Mercury and COVID-19Protect Patients’ Rights, Help Ban Mercuryhttps://articles.mercola.com/themes/blogs/mercola/VideoPanel.aspx?PostID=1021175&v=20200825

STORY AT-A-GLANCE 

• “Plandemic — Indoctornation” reveals the driving forces behind the vaccine agenda. It looks at the roles of the World Health Organization, Bill Gates, Tedros Adhanom, Dr. Anthony Fauci, mainstream media, Silicon Valley tech giants, Big Pharma and many others, connecting the dots between them
• The U.S. CDC owns the patent for SARS-CoV (the virus responsible for SARS) isolated from humans. In 2007, the CDC filed a petition with the patent office to keep their coronavirus patent confidential. They also own patents for detection methods, and for a kit to measure the virus
• By law, one cannot patent naturally-occurring DNA. If SARS-CoV is natural, then the patent is illegal. If the virus is manmade, the patent is legal, but the creation of the virus would be a violation of biological weapons treaties and laws. So, either way, the CDC has engaged in illegal activity
• Because the CDC owns the patent on SARS-CoV, it controls who has the ability to make inquiries into it. Unless authorized, you cannot look at the virus, you cannot measure it or make tests for it, since they own all those patents. This means the CDC has a major profit motive
• The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill owns a patent describing methods for producing recombinant coronaviruses

Late in May 2020, media producer Mikki Willis released the first part of his documentary “Plandemic,” featuring Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., a cellular and molecular biologist¹ whose research revealed many vaccines are contaminated with gammaretroviruses, due to the viruses being grown in contaminated animal cell lines. The 26-minute film was banned on every social media platform after going viral.² August 18, 2020, Part 2, titled “Plandemic — Indoctornation,” was released. 

Plandemic — Indoctornation 

Part 2 is a full-length feature, revealing the driving force behind the vaccine agenda. It looks at the roles of the World Health Organization, Bill Gates, Tedros Adhanom, Dr. Anthony Fauci, mainstream media, Silicon Valley tech giants, Big Pharma and many others, connecting the dots between them. Willis interviews a variety of individuals, including:

Activist and journalist Theo Wilson

Researcher Dr. Aaron Lewis

Board-certified primary care physician Dr. Jeff Barke

Attorney, science teacher and author Kent Heckenlively

Sherri Tenpenny, D.O.

Dr. Rashid Buttar, medical director for the Centers for Advanced Medicine

Author Curtis Cost

Attorney David J. Follin

Author and winner of the Doctors Who Rock Truth in Journalism Award 2017, Erin Elizabeth

NJ state representative Jamel C. Holley

Dr. Colin Gonsalves, senior counsel, Supreme Court of India

Legal researcher Travis Middleton

Mary Holland, vice chair and general counsel for the Children’s Health Defense

Educator and activist Peggy Hall

Kevin Jenkins, CEO of Urban Global Health Alliance

Professor John Oller, researcher in theoretical and experimental biosemiotics

Engineer and Google whistleblower Zach Vorhies

Dr. George Zabrecky, physician, medical educator and researcher

Dr. Pamela Popper, president of Wellness Forum Health

Scientist Denis Rancourt, Ph.D.

Dr. Meryl Nass, physician, researcher and writer

Professor Dolores J. Cahill, Ph.D., a molecular biologist and immunologist

Professor Luc Montagnier, a Nobel Laureate, medical researcher and virologist

Free supplemental footage, including a follow-up interview with Mikovits, as well as links to additional resources provided by all of the interviewees are supposed to be available on the film’s website, plandemicseries.com.

Event 201

The film starts out by reviewing Event 201, a pandemic preparedness simulation hosted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in October 2019 — 10 weeks before the COVID-19 outbreak first began in Wuhan. 

This scripted tabletop exercise included everything we now see playing out in real time, in the real world, from PPE shortages, lockdowns and removal of civil liberties to mandated vaccination campaigns, riots, economic turmoil and the breakdown of social cohesion. A highlight reel of the predictions put forth during this event is included in the documentary. 

At the time, they spent a great deal of time discussing ways to limit and counter the spread of expected “misinformation” about the pandemic and the vaccines that would have to be developed. In addition to outright censorship, their plan included the use of “soft power,” a term referring to stealth influencing using celebrities and other social media influencers. 

I discussed this in “The PR Firm Behind WHO’s Celeb Endorsements.” Just as in real life, one of the pieces of “misinformation” that had to be countered was rumors that the virus had been created and released from a bioweapons laboratory. 

Operation Mockingbird Never Ended, It Just Got Privatized

The film also reveals how SARS-CoV-2 has been turned into a profit center, the possible origins of SARS-CoV-2, and how Silicon Valley tech giants are controlling the narrative, pushing fearmongering and censoring differing views.

What we’re seeing is straight out of the Operation Mockingbird playbook, a clandestine CIA media influencing campaign launched in the 1950s. During the Cold War, the CIA used it to spread propaganda. It recruited journalists to pen fake stories that disparaged communist ideologies. 

Today, they’re doing the complete opposite, promoting radical socialist ideas that support their plan for a technocratic economic system. As revealed in the widely-banned documentary “Shadowgate,”^3,4 a shadow government has built up behind the scenes, and they’re using sophisticated psychological warfare tools against the American public to further their nefarious agenda. 

Shockingly, the reason this shadow government — led by government contractors, privatized intelligence companies — are able to manipulate public opinion is because they’ve been illegally siphoning the data collected by the NSA from all Americans, and privatizing it. 

All of our personal data, combined with artificial intelligence and so-called localization strategies, allows sophisticated computer programs to predict which action or public message will result in a particular outcome. 

We’re in the midst of a social engineering project that poses a serious existential threat to our personal liberty and freedom. We’re all exposed to it daily, and have been for years. It’s just that now it’s become so pervasive, it’s blatantly obvious for anyone willing to see it. As you’d expect, “Plandemic — Indoctornation” also spends some time reviewing the role of Bill Gates and his foundation. 

CDC Owns Coronavirus Patents

Willis interviews David E. Martin, Ph.D., a national intelligence analyst and founder of IQ100 Index, which developed linguistic genomics, a platform capable of determining the intent of communications. According to Martin, in 1999, IBM digitized 1 million U.S. patents, which allowed his company to conduct a review.

Using linguistic genomics technology, Martin made the “horrific assessment” that one-third of all patents filed in the U.S. were functional forgeries, meaning that “while they had linguistic variations, they covered the same subject matter.” In 1999, patents for coronavirus also started to appear, “and thus began the rabbit trail,” Martin says.  

In 2003, Asia experienced an outbreak of SARS. Almost immediately, scientists began racing to patent the virus. Ultimately, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention nabbed ownership of SARS-CoV (the virus responsible for SARS) isolated from humans. 

The CDC actually owns the entire genetic content of that SARS virus. It’s patented under U.S. patent 7776521. They also own patents for detection methods, and for a kit to measure the virus. 

U.S. patent 7279327,⁵ filed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, describes methods for producing recombinant coronaviruses. Ralph Baric, Ph.D., a professor of microbiology and immunology who is famous for his chimeric coronavirus research, is listed as one of the three inventors, along with Kristopher Curtis and Boyd Yount. 

The law clearly states that genetic segments are “not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” So, either SARS-CoV was manmade, which would render the patent legal, or it’s natural, thus rendering the patent on it illegal. However, if the virus was manufactured, then it was created in violation of biological weapons treaties and laws.

According to Martin, Fauci, Baric and the CDC “are at the hub” of the COVID-19 story. “In 2002, coronaviruses were recognized as an exploitable mechanism for both good and ill,” Martin says, and “Between 2003 and 2017, they [Fauci, Baric and CDC] controlled 100% of the cash flow to build the empire around the industrial complex of coronavirus.”

CDC Has Broken the Law, One Way or Another

Now, here’s the key take-home message Martin delivers. There’s a distinct problem with the CDC’s patent on SARS-CoV isolated from humans, because, by law, naturally occurring DNA segments are prohibited from being patented. 

The law clearly states that such segments are “not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated.” So, either SARS-CoV was manmade, which would render the patent legal, or it’s natural, thus rendering the patent on it illegal.

However, if the virus was manufactured, then it was created in violation of biological weapons treaties and laws. This includes the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, passed unanimously by both houses of Congress and signed into law by George Bush Sr., which states:⁶

“Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States.”

So, as noted by Martin, regardless of which scenario turns out to be true, the CDC has broken the law one way or another, either by violating biological weapons laws, or by filing an illegal patent. Even more egregious, May 14, 2007, the CDC filed a petition with the patent office to keep their coronavirus patent confidential. 

Now, because the CDC owns the patent on SARS-CoV, it has control over who had the ability to make inquiries into the coronavirus, Martin notes. Unless authorized, you cannot look at the virus, you cannot measure it or make tests for it, since they own the entire genome and all the rest. 

“By obtaining the patents that restrained anyone from using it, they had the means, the motive, and most of all, they had the monetary gain from turning coronavirus from a pathogen to a profit,” Martin says.

Dangerous Gain-of-Function Research Was Permitted

Martin goes on to describe events occurring between 2012 and 2013. At that time, the National Institutes of Health decided to take another look at gain-of-function research, ultimately deciding that gain-of-function research on coronavirus was too risky to continue. 

This led to the suspension of funding of such research in 2013. That included funding flowing into Harvard, Emery and University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. However, while the NIH had moral and even legal reasons for suspending such research, they made the funding pause voluntary, not mandatory. 

Then, in 2014, when the push-back against gain-of-function research into coronaviruses grew further, the NIH — under the leadership of Fauci — offshored that research to — you guessed it — the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. 

However, as detailed by Martin, the funding was not sent in a straight-forward way. Instead, it was funneled through front organizations such as the EcoHealth Alliance, led by its president, Peter Daszak, whose research, according to the EchoHealth Alliance website, “includes identifying the bat origin of SARS.”⁷

Between 2014 and 2019, EcoHealth Alliance received a long list of grants from the NIH to study “the risk of bat coronavirus emergence.” EcoHealth Alliance then subcontracted that work to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. So, in the end, the U.S. could deny culpability, blaming the outbreak on China when, in fact, it was American research that had been outsourced.

Interestingly, in late-breaking news August 19, 2020, The Wall Street Journal⁸ reported that the NIH had notified EcoHealth that it wants “a sample of the new coronavirus that the Wuhan researchers used to determine its genetic sequence,” along with study details and other information.

Additionally, the NIH demanded that EcoHealth “arrange for an inspection of the Wuhan Institute of Virology by an outside team that would examine the facility’s lab and records ‘with specific attention to addressing the question of whether WIV staff had SARS-CoV-2 in their possession prior to December 2019.’”

The problem, Martin notes in “Indoctornation,” is that while the evidence is staring us right in the face, we’re told that so-called “fact-checkers” have a transcendent view of the situation, and they are the ultimate arbiters of truth. As a result, we have this very strange situation where facts and logic are being steamrolled and lambasted as good old-fashioned heresy. 

Will Truth Prevail?

The film goes on to interview many other experts, many of whom are convinced the evidence points to SARS-CoV-2 being a manmade virus. Like Plandemic Part 1, Part 2 is well worth your time. As noted by Willis, in today’s fast-paced world, few have the time to do the necessary research to unveil what’s really going on. 

The evidence is there, but you have to put it together. This is why documentaries such as “Plandemic” and “Shadowgate” are so useful. They weave the dots together so that you can see a fuller, more complete picture. Unfortunately, the picture at present is grim. 

Yet, we must face it because it’s not going away or resolving in the near future. It is important to understand that we are all being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign to move us toward a very specific technocratic agenda. It is only by seeking alternative views that we can begin to understand the truth. 

In the case of coronavirus, it should be clear that gain-of-function research is a dangerous game that should not be permitted. By giving researchers the go-ahead to continue this kind of research, even as the NIH publicly “paused” funding for it, the NIH failed to uphold its moral and legal responsibilities. 

It’s also clear that the CDC has engaged in illegal activities relating to the patenting of the virus, and that they had ample motive and means to profit from a coronavirus pandemic. It’s hard to imagine a more corrupt system than what we currently have. The question is: When will something be done about it? 

August 24, 2020

“There are things that stay with you, that take you back to another moment in time – –

For me, it is the smell of fish, sometimes comforting, sometimes gut-wrenching and rank, but always familiar;

The smell of my livelihood, a part of who I was.

There are things that are never forgotten, and that bring other memories with them,

Sitting under a fig tree and being told to “come and see,” and standing up and dusting myself off,

And feeling disdain for a man who I had never met because he came from Nazareth.

There are things that divide your life into two parts, the “before” and the “after,”

And the time “before” seems to be painted in warm, earth-tinged colors,

With hints of blues-greens-browns reflected off of the water,

And the taste of fresh bread in your mouth as you unwrap it in your hands and take a bite while gazing at the sea;

Long days of hard work and evenings of well-earned rest.  

And then there is the time “after,” a time that seems painted in brilliant yellow,

Interspersed with sharp tones of black and red; black that wounds, and red that drips.

There is the memory of eyes that look through you; eyes that smile before His mouth smiles,

Eyes that pierce a man’s soul and that weep over the condition of a man’s heart.

There is the time before you knew that He existed, and the time after you met Him,

And looking back you wonder how it was possible that the days moved forward before you knew Him,

Without interruption and as though there was nothing else that was needed,

Because looking back at the time after, after you had heard His voice, after He had looked at you,

You realize that is when you started to truly live, 

And that in that moment you were changed as surely as if He had reached into your heart and ignited a fire.

And, afterwards, you can sit on the shore and inhale the smell of the water and the fish.

In fact, you can even go fishing as though nothing had ever changed at all.

But in the midst of the familiar greens-browns-blues of the earth and the water,

There is the sharp thrust of the black knife, the dripping red on its blade,

And then the brilliant gold of being welcomed into His presence.

There are things that stay with you, that take you back to another moment in time,

There are things that are never forgotten, and that bring other memories with them,

There are things that divide your life into two parts, the “before” and the “after.”

But there is one thing that cannot be denied.

Once you have moved from the “before” into the “after,”

You are not the same person as you were.

You may have been an easy going, fun-loving fisherman whose main concern was a good daily catch,

Who thought a good deal of a comfortable place to sleep, friends and family around, familiar things.

But afterwards, you cannot look upon the water without seeing His face,

Or eat a meal without thinking about the time he fed a multitude and had baskets left over,

Or lie down to sleep without remembering Him taking the hand of a child who could not arise and bringing her to her feet. 

There are moments that change everything.

There are moments that are bathed in light – bright yellow – moments in His presence,

But interspersed is the black of a knife and the red of dripping blood.

And then you realize – one has no more attraction or repulsion than the other –

For in both He is present.

So whether death or life, whether sorrow or joy, whether pain or comfort,

It matters not, as long as He is there.

For there are moments that change everything.

There is the “before,” and there is the “after,”

And in the “after” you are with Him,

And nothing else ever matters again.”

-S

JudicialWatchBecause no one  is above the late

JUDICIAL WATCH INVESTIGATIVE FACT SHEETTHE VAST GEORGE SOROS NETWORK

BACKGROUND

George Soros was born in Hungary and became a naturalized citizen of the United States in 1961. He made his fortune managing hedge funds and investments worldwide. In February 2017 Forbes Magazine estimated his net worth at $25.2 billion, ranking him as the 19th wealthiest individual in the world.

George Soros created his Open Society Foundations (OSF) in 1979. Ac­cording to the group’s website, OSF has contributed $1.5 BILLION to groups in the United States alone. DiscovertheNetworks.org has stated that the OSF has funded 199 organizations in the United States, and an additional seven American groups have been funded indirectly by contributions from other Soros-funded groups. In late 2017, Soros transferred $18 BILLION…the bulk of his personal wealth…to OSF. In one fell swoop, Soros’ transfer to OSF made the group second only to the Bill and Melinda Gates’ Foundation in the value of its U.S. assets.

DIRECT U.S. POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT AND FUNDING OF LEFT-WING CANDIDATES

Soros’ direct political activity began during the 2004 campaign cycle. He contributed just over

$25 million to various liberal and Democratic Party groups working to defeat then President George W. Bush’s reelection. Since then, Soros has continued to make large personal contributions to leftist candidates for national office, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. (Judicial Watch does not support or oppose candidates for public office.)

Recently, new evidence of Soros’ ongoing involvement in supporting left-wing candidates came to light. Soros personally donated $408,000 to a Political Action Committee that supported Cook County, Illinois State’s Attorney Kim Foxx, who made headlines when she dropped felony charges against actor Jussie Smollett, who was accused of fabricating a hate crime. Smollett claimed he was attacked in Chicago by two masked men who shouted racial and homophobic slurs, beat him, poured bleach on him and tied a rope around his neck. He blamed the attack on white Trump supporters. Smollett’s entire story was a fabrication, apparently created by the actor in order to make headlines and increase his visibility as he negotiated his TV contract. When the hoax was uncovered, prosecutors charged him with 16 felonies… but Foxx dropped the charges.

Soros continues to contribute lavish sums to left-wing Democrats in races for justice-sensitive posts in­cluding prosecutors, state’s attorneys and district attorneys in a growing number of states across the U.S.

Where Does Other Soros Money Go?

Groups receiving funds from OSF are universally “progressive” in their philosophy. Some recipients cover the full range of radical and progressive causes, including:

·       The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU);                 • Common Cause;

·       The Brookings Institution;                                         • Planned Parenthood.

·       The Center for American Progress;

Other groups receiving financial support from the Soros network address specific issues. They include:

·       Anti-Israel (Al-Haq, Amnesty International, Arab American Institute Foundation, New Israel Fund);

·       Anti-conservative judicial appointments (Alliance for Justice);

·       Anti-educational choice (American Federation of Teachers);

·       Pro-abortion rights (Catholics for Choice, Center for Reproductive Rights, National Women’s Law Center);

·       Radical and LGBT agenda (Human Rights Campaign)

Soros’ support also goes to groups involved in two issues that are extremely important to Judicial Watch: illegal immigration and honest elections. Here is a partial list of open-border and pro-amnesty groups that have received money from the OSF:

·       America’s Voice (pro-“comprehensive immigration reform”);

·       American Bar Association Commission on Immigration Policy (“opposes laws that require em­ployers and persons providing education, health care or other social services to verify citizenship or immigration status”);

·       American Immigration Council (pro-amnesty);

·       American Immigration Law Foundation (legal actions in support of amnesty);

·       Brennan Center for Justice (legal actions, pro bono support to activists, media campaigns);

·       Casa de Maryland (radical state lobbying organization for amnesty and expanded rights for illegal aliens living in Maryland);

·       Center for Constitutional Rights (pro-open-borders);

·       National Immigration Forum (pro-amnesty for illegal aliens and more visas for individuals wishing to immigrate legally tote U.S.);

·       National Immigration aw Center (pro-full access to government social welfare programs for illegal aliens).

·       Unidos US (formerly National Council of La Raza) (pro-amnesty and expanded rights for illegal aliens).

Judicial Watch research has also identified Casa de Maryland, National Immigration Law Center and Unidos US as recipients of U.S. taxpayer dollars (through U.S. government grants).

The following groups have received Soros funding and are reportedly active in promoting, organizing and supporting the “migrant caravans” from Central America which helped ignite the current unprec­edented numbers of illegal aliens attempting to cross our border with Mexico.

·       Amnesty International;

·       The Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC) (the “largest network of nonprofit immigration legal services programs” in the country;

·       The American Constitution Society (highly critical of Trump immigration policies);

·       Center for Legal Action in Human Rights (active in OSF programs in Guatemala);

·       Church World Service (compared Trump administration response to the migrant caravans to turning away Jewish refugees from Europe aboard the MS St. Louis in 1930);

·       Human Rights First (actively opposes Trump administration immigration efforts);

·       The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights (sued Trump administration over his immigration executive order and the inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census form);

·       The National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (provided legal assistance to caravan migrants);

Judicial Watch research has also identified The Catholic Legal Immigration Network as a recipient of U.S. taxpayer dollars through grants from three U.S. government agencies.

Following is a partial list of Soros-funded groups determined to weaken ballot integrity, undermine election integrity laws and make it easier for illegal aliens to vote in American elections.

·       The Advancement Project (which advertises itself as “the next generation, multi-racial civil rights organization);

·       Bend the Arc Jewish Action (condemns voter ID laws as barriers that make it harder for minorities to vote);

·       Demos (whose board i now chaired by the daughter of radical U.S. Senator and Democratic presidential candidate 4Iizabeth Warren);

·       Project Vote (the voter mobilization arm of the discredited ACORN organization, which also received Soros support);

·       Southern Coalition for Social Justice (involved in several challenges to voter ID and redistricting legal challenges in the South).

The Revolving Personnel Door between the Soros Network and the U.S. Government. The influence of George Soros upon U.S. government policy, especially during the Obama years, is not due exclusively to his massive financial contributions to liberal advocacy groups, left-wing candidates and the Democratic Party. !His world-view is also shared by scores of liberal activists who at one time or another have worked in the Soros network (most frequently at the Open Society Foundations) and in policy-making positions within the U.S. government…including positions in the Obama White House, the Justice Department, the State Department, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).Judicial Watch has identified 21 individuals who have been through this “revolving door” between the Soros network and the U.S. government, and we believe that we have just begun to scratch the surface.

At the same time, we have identified millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars going, in the form of U.S. govern­ment grants, to groups led by OSF board members and others with connections to the Soros network. (You can review profiles of these individuals and review some of the OSF-related grants we have un­covered in “The Financial and Staffing Nexus Between the Open Society Foundations and the United States Government,” a Judicial Watch Special Report that we would like to send to you in appreciation for your tax-deductible contribution of $50 or more.)

Conclusion

The Soros network clearly dwarfs both national political parties in its financial resources. Its impact on American public policies (both foreign and domestic) is only now beginning to be understood…thanks in large part to Judicial Watch’s research, investigations and litigation. There is much more to be learned about the influence of the Soros network, and especially when U.S. taxpayer dollars are awarded to groups within the Soros network, therefore using public taxpayer funds to advance George Soros’ radical left agenda.

Judicial Watch is suitably positioned and uniquely qualified to successfully investigate and liti­gate this nexus of taxpayer financing of left-wing activism.

‘Stench of Mendacity’ Hangs Over Parley Of the Democrats By: CONRAD BLACK  August 21, 2020 The opening two nights of the Democratic national convention this week produced the greatest deluge of monstrous political falsehoods in any two evenings of American television history. The champion mythmaker was the venerable Senator Bernie Sanders. After the usual fictions about “systemic racism,” the most convenient way of ignoring this summer’s widespread urban terrorism, came the familiar pieties about climate change, an issue that, happily, has run largely out of steam during the coronavirus crisis. Mr. Sanders then decried “the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression.” After four years of the Great Depression, unemployment was over 30% and there was no direct aid for those out of work. This recent artificial dip was a response to a shutdown supported by a broad political and scientific consensus and has already shrunk through a reduction of unemployment in the last three months larger than the entire number of net new jobs created in the eight Obama-Biden years. Mr. Sanders declared that President Trump is “leading us down the path of authoritarianism . . . greed, oligarchy, and bigotry.” He urgently assured the convention that the election was about “preserving our democracy,” because Mr. Trump had “tried to prevent people from voting, undermined the U.S. Postal Service, deployed the military and federal agents against peaceful protesters, threatened to delay the election, and suggested he will not leave office if he loses.”“Under this administration,” Mr. Sanders said, “authoritarianism has taken root in our country . . . I will work to preserve this nation from the threat that so many of our heroes fought and died to defeat.” President Trump’s concern about huge numbers of ballots being mailed to nonexistent voters or to the wrong addresses and filled out and returned through the post office fraudulently by party organizers is well-founded. He has appointed a postmaster general with a mandate to shape up the Postal Service, but there is no reason for optimism that in its present condition it could handle 75 million presidential election ballots coming and going. The occasional deployment of federal marshals and national guardsmen has been to prevent urban guerrillas and hooligans from burning down federal buildings and destroying the monuments to America’s great men. Mr. Trump expressed concern that the Democratic plan to flood the country with posted ballots and harvest them to their own advantage might provoke litigation that would not allow the winner to be identified by inauguration day. He has said that, of course, he would leave office on January 20 if he lost the election. This entire argument is an unutterable fabrication. So is the allegation of “authoritarianism.” Not a scrap of illustrative evidence was or could be cited in support of it. The most odious assertion of all in this farrago of malignant calumnies was to assimilate Mr. Trump to the enemies of America whom generations of veterans fought and gave their lives to defeat. I am quite relaxed about political hyperbole, but the comparison of Mr. Trump to Nazism, which is what Mr. Sanders was implying, gave the entire proceedings what Tennessee Williams called “the stench of mendacity.” It is supremely irritating to have Democratic hypocrites call for unity and promise to “bring the nation together” while denouncing the incumbent president as akin to a Nazi all while failing even to mention, much less criticize, the urban mob violence they have helped provoke and have effectively condoned. “By rejecting science,” Mr. Sanders continued, the president “has put our lives and health in jeopardy, refusing to produce the masks, gowns, and gloves our healthcare workers desperately need.” In fact, Mr. Trump showed great executive ingenuity in producing those items in great quantities with astounding speed, emancipating the country from the absolute shambles in public health emergency response capability bequeathed to him by Messrs. Obama and Biden. Mr. Sanders pretentiously affected classical learning in saying “Nero fiddled while Rome burned; Trump golfs. His actions fanned this pandemic, resulting in over 170,000 deaths.” Nero was a self-adulatory psychopath with no aptitude to be emperor, a position he inherited. He was assassinated by his palace guard while he was attempting to commit suicide in recognition of his total failure. Mr. Sanders was inexorable; Mr. Trump’s “negligence has exacerbated the economic crisis; instead of maintaining the $600 a week of unemployment supplement,” he has unconstitutionally replaced it with “virtually nothing,” in fact, he authorized a $400 weekly supplement so that the unemployed have an incentive to return to work. And, naturally, Mr. Sanders accused Mr. Trump of “threatening the very future of Social Security.” Providentially, Mr. Sanders added, “Joe Biden will end the hate and division Trump has created. He will stop the demoralization of immigrants, the coddling of white nationalists, the racist dog-whistling, the religious bigotry, and the ugly attacks on women.” An absolute majority of the sentences in Mr. Sanders’ bilious harangue were false. It was an unintended profession of the total moral bankruptcy of the Democratic campaign; there were no positive suggestions, nothing but unexplained hatred of the president. The one truthful sentence in all of it may have been the eerie triumphalism that his socialist “movement” had effectively taken over the Democratic Party. Yet the pièce de résistance of Tuesday evening was from the former First Lady, Michelle Obama. The fact that it was taped more than a week before in Martha’s Vineyard prevented her from inflicting the merits of the vice presidential nominee on us. But what we got was a lengthy avalanche of sanctimonious claptrap. “A never-ending list of innocent people of color continue to be murdered; stating the simple fact that a black life matters is still met with derision from the nation’s highest office,” she said. [Americans] see people calling the police on folks minding their own business just because of the color of their skin. They see an entitlement that says only certain people belong here, that greed is good, and winning is everything because as long as you come out on top, it doesn’t matter what happens to everyone else . . . They see our leaders labeling fellow citizens enemies of the state while emboldening torch-bearing white supremacists. They watch in horror as children are torn from their families and thrown into cages, and pepper spray and rubber bullets are used on peaceful protesters for a photo-op. Those who accuse their opponents of Nazi tendencies reinvent Goebbels’ “big lie” adapted to squalid Alinskyite Democratic urban bossism. The cages were in fact comfortable simulations of McDonald’s outlets and were set up during her husband’s regime and the “peaceful protesters” had been rioting for hours, hurling projectiles at the police, and trying to tear down a statue of Andrew Jackson. The walk to the “president’s church” the day after her peaceful protesters tried to burn it down may have been a photo-op, but it was an elegant gesture indicating that, unlike the Democratic Party, the administration would not tolerate unlimited violence, arson, assault, and vandalism from the mobs that the Democrats not only “coddled,” but lionized. Michelle Obama’s promise that “when they go low, we go high,” was more galling than usual as the indictments of her husband’s administration begin, for the greatest outrage against constitutional presidential elections in American history. Mercifully, the second evening closed with a tasteful, even encouraging, note with the gracious address of Jill Biden. After all those who preceded her, she was a tentative reassurance that some sanity, decency, and integrity remain in that party, which has been hijacked by extremists. One can only wish her well. Email link:  https://conta.cc/34pJxy5