New Disclosures Confirm: Trump Himself Was the Target of Obama Administration’s Russia Probe Assertions that the focus was ‘the Trump campaign’ are now known to be ludicrous By ANDREW C. MCCARTHYAugust 1, 2020  Long-sought documents finally pried from U.S. intelligence agencies prove that the Obama administration used the occasion of providing a standard intelligence briefing for major-party candidates as an opportunity to investigate Donald Trump on suspicion of being a Russian asset. I say investigate Donald Trump advisedly. As I contended in Ball of Collusion, my book on the Trump-Russia investigation, the target of the probe spearheaded by the FBI — but greenlighted by the Obama White House, and abetted by the Justice Department and U.S. intelligence agencies — was Donald Trump. Not the Trump campaign, not the Trump administration. Those were of interest only insofar as they were vehicles for Trump himself. The campaign, which the Bureau and its apologists risibly claim was the focus of the investigation, would have been of no interest to them were it not for Trump. Or do you suppose they moved heaven and earth, surreptitiously plotted in the Oval Office, wrote CYA memos to cover their tracks, and laboriously sculpted FBI reports because they were hoping to nail . . . George Papadopoulos? My book was published a year ago. It covered what was then known about the Obama-administration operation. In collusion with the Clinton campaign, and with the complicity of national-security officials who transitioned into the Trump administration, the Obama White House deployed the FBI to undermine the new president, dually using official investigative tactics (e.g. FISA surveillance, confidential informants, covert interrogations) and lawless classified leaks — the latter publicized by dependable journalists who were (and remain) politically invested in unseating Trump. Now the paper trail is finally catching up with what some of us analysts long ago surmised based on the limited information previously available. You don’t like Donald Trump? Fine. The investigation here was indeed about Donald Trump. But the scandal is about how abusive officials can exploit their awesome powers against any political opponent. And the people who authorized this political spying will be right back in business if, come November, Obama’s vice-president is elected president — notwithstanding that he’s yet to be asked serious questions about it. How to Conceal a Politicized InvestigationIt seems mind-boggling that, for so long, the FBI and Justice Department were able to keep a lid on the documents now being released. President Trump could have directed their disclosure at any time over the last four years. But when you think about it, concealing the paper trail was the easy part. The real challenge was: How to continue the probe even after Trump had taken office and was, at least nominally, in a position to shut it down? The Obama officials, including holdovers who transitioned into the Trump administration, pulled that off by intimidation: not-so-subtle suggestions that they could disclose damaging allegations at any time (e.g., the notorious “pee tape”), and that White House efforts to inquire into the scope of the investigation would be portrayed as criminal obstruction. Prior to the 2016 election, the FBI intentionally concealed the existence of the Trump-Russia probe from the congressional “Gang of Eight” (the bipartisan leadership of both houses and their intelligence committees). Senior Republicans were thus kept in the dark regarding purported suspicions that the Republican presidential campaign was a Russian front, unable to pose tough questions about the probe’s gossamer predication. Crucially, the Trump-Russia fabulists managed to sideline two Trump loyalists who would have been positioned to thwart the effort: national-security adviser Michael Flynn and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. That left in place Obama holdovers and Trump-appointed placeholders. They were indifferent to Trump himself and cowed by the prospect of being framed as complicit in a Trump–Russia conspiracy, or a cover-up. The paper record is profoundly embarrassing, so it is only natural that the FBI and Justice Department resisted its disclosure. But documents about the investigation were demanded by congressional investigators starting years ago — particularly by the investigation led in the House by then–Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.). Congress’s investigation was stonewalled. The more revelation we get, the more obvious it is that there was no bona fide national-security rationale for concealment. Documents were withheld to hide official and unofficial executive activity that was abusive, embarrassing, and, at least in some instances, illegal (e.g., tampering with a document that was critical to the FBI’s presentation of “facts” to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court). Democrats wanted this information suppressed all along. So of course, once Democrats took control of the House in 2019, there was no possibility of pressing the question of why the Justice Department and FBI failed to comply with House information demands back in 2017–18, when Republicans led the relevant committees. One wonders, though, why the GOP-controlled Senate had so little interest in finding out why this paper trail stayed hidden despite repeated inquiries. Ditto the House Republican leadership in the first two years of Trump’s term. It is hard to draw any conclusion other than that the GOP establishment bought the “Russian interference in our democracy” hysteria. Moscow always meddles in U.S. elections. The 2016 interference was par for the course and, as always, utterly ineffective. This time, though, Democrats were perceived as the victims, rather than the beneficiaries. For once, they and their media megaphone demanded that the political class treat Russia as a serious threat. On cue, Washington Republicans genuflected, lest they be portrayed as covering up for Trump, or as soft on Putin. Meanwhile Democrats, the party of appeasement (very much including appeasement of Moscow through the Obama years), were transmogrified into Russia hawks. And Russia hawks they’ll remain . . . right up until the moment Joe Biden takes the oath of office. Exploiting Politics to Surveil the OppositionAmong the most significant of the newly declassified documents is a memorandum written by FBI agent Joe Pientka III, the case agent on Trump-Russia. It was Pientka who, at the FBI’s New York City headquarters on August 17, 2016, purported to brief Trump and two top campaign surrogates — the aforementioned General Flynn and then–New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who was slated to run the transition if Trump won. In reality, Pientka and the FBI regarded the occasion not as a briefing for the Republican presidential nominee but as an opportunity to interact with Donald Trump for investigative purposes. Clearly, the Bureau did that because Trump was the main subject of the investigation. The hope was that he’d blurt things out that would help the FBI prove he was an agent of Russia. The Obama administration and the FBI knew that it was they who were meddling in a presidential campaign — using executive intelligence powers to monitor the president’s political opposition. This, they also knew, would rightly be regarded as a scandalous abuse of power if it ever became public. There was no rational or good-faith evidentiary basis to believe that Trump was in a criminal conspiracy with the Kremlin or that he’d had any role in Russian intelligence’s suspected hacking of Democratic Party email accounts. You didn’t have to believe Trump was a savory man to know that. His top advisers were Flynn, a decorated combat veteran; Christie, a former U.S. attorney who vigorously investigated national-security cases; Rudy Giuliani, a legendary former U.S. attorney and New York City mayor who’d rallied the country against anti-American terrorism; and Jeff Sessions, a longtime U.S. senator with a strong national-defense track record. To believe Trump was unfit for the presidency on temperamental or policy grounds was a perfectly reasonable position for Obama officials to take — though an irrelevant one, since it’s up to the voters to decide who is suitable. But to claim to suspect that Trump was in a cyberespionage conspiracy with the Kremlin was inane . . . except as a subterfuge to conduct political spying, which Obama officials well knew was an abuse of power. So they concealed it. They structured the investigation on the fiction that there was a principled distinction between Trump himself and the Trump campaign. In truth, the animating assumption of the probe was that Trump himself was acting on Russia’s behalf, either willfully or under the duress of blackmail. By purporting to focus on the campaign, investigators had the fig leaf of deniability they needed to monitor the candidate. Just two weeks before Pientka’s August 17 “briefing” of Trump, the FBI formally opened “Crossfire Hurricane,” the codename for the Trump-Russia investigation. The Bureau also opened four Trump-Russia subfiles, related to Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and Flynn. There was no case file called “Donald Trump” because Trump was  “Crossfire Hurricane.” The theory of Crossfire Hurricane was that Russia had blackmail information on Trump, which it could use to extort Trump into doing Putin’s bidding if Trump were elected. It was further alleged that Russia had been cultivating Trump for years and was helping Trump’s election bid in exchange for future considerations. Investigators surmised that Trump had recruited Paul Manafort (who had connections to Russian oligarchs and pro-Russia Ukrainian oligarchs) as his campaign manager, enabling Manafort to use such emissaries as Page to carry out furtive communications between Trump and the Kremlin. If elected, the theory went, Trump would steer American policy in Russia’s favor, just as the Bureau speculated that Trump was already corruptly steering the Republican party into a more pro-Moscow posture. Get Them TalkingBesides obtaining FISA surveillance warrants against Page, the Bureau’s favored tactic — a common one in criminal investigations — was to create or exploit situations in which the suspects would be at ease. Either the settings would not seem investigative or, in Trump’s case, repeated assurances were provided that he was not under investigation. With no notice that the FBI was trying to catch them and even prompt them into making incriminating statements, Trump and his campaign advisers would be invited to talk about Russia. Agents parsed their statements and scrutinized their demeanor, searching for any indication of pro-Russia sentiment or uneasiness about the topic — anything that could be portrayed as incriminating. If the Bureau’s contacts with Trump officials were not covertly recorded (as they were, for example, when informants interacted with Papadopoulos), agents would generate written reports about them, the kind of reports the FBI routinely writes when building a criminal case. This is exactly what Pientka did in connection with the August 17 “briefing,” under the supervision of Kevin Clinesmith, the rabidly anti-Trump FBI lawyer later found by the Justice Department’s inspector general to have tampered with a key email, and Peter Strzok, the rabidly anti-Trump counterintelligence agent who was later fired. Pientka’s significantly redacted seven-page memo is worth reading. The point of it is not the national-security information provided to the candidate; that is just context for the Bureau’s documenting of statements made by Trump in response. For example, when the topic is differences in methodology between Russian and Chinese espionage, Pientka carefully notes that Trump asked, “Joe, are the Russians bad? Because they have more numbers [of FBI cases] are they worse than the Chinese?” After all, maybe we’ll find out he was reporting back to the Kremlin. When the topic turned to signals intelligence, Pientka notes that Trump interjected, “Yes I understand it’s a dark time. Nothing is safe on computers anymore,” and elaborated that his then-ten-year-old son had broken the code for access to a computer — you know, just the kind of badinage you’d expect from a co-conspirator in a Russian hacking scheme. Pientka then recounts that when other intelligence-agency briefers took over to continue the briefing on other topics, Pientka did not leave; he stayed in the room “actively listen[ing] for topics or questions regarding the Russian Federation.” Here, in a classified report they figure no one will ever see, there is no pretense: FBI agents are monitoring Trump. Pientka notes that when one briefer said the U.S. was the world’s leader in counterterrorism, Trump interjected, “Russia too?” And when the discussion turned to cheating by Russia and China on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, “Trump asked, ‘Who’s worse?’” When the briefer replied, “They are both bad, but Russia is worse,” Pientka took pains to relate, “Trump and Christie turned toward each other and Christie commented, ‘Im shocked’” [sic]. You’re thinking, “So what?” Yeah, well, that’s the point. They had nothing, but the agents were exploiting the U.S. political process to try to turn nothing into a federal case. And would any public official voluntarily attend a security briefing, ostensibly meant to help him perform his public-safety mission, if he thought the FBI might be spying on him and writing reports with an eye toward portraying him as a hostile power’s mole? Just as we’ve seen in the Flynn investigation, Pientka’s official FBI report is marked in bold capital letters: “DRAFT DOCUMENT/DELIBERATIVE MATERIAL.” Why deliberate over a draft when the purpose is to document a suspect’s statements? After all, he said whatever he said; there shouldn’t be a need to edit it. Drafts and deliberations are necessary only if a report is being massaged to fit the perceived needs of the investigation. Observe that, although the briefing was August 17, the memo is dated August 30. Nearly two weeks later, and it’s still in the form of a deliberative draft, meaning they’re not done yet. This is not materially different from the Obama administration’s plan on January 6, 2017. That is when the FBI’s then-director, James Comey, “briefed” Trump in New York City. This briefing came just a day after Comey met with his Obama-administration superiors — the president, Vice President Biden, national-security adviser Susan Rice, and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. They discussed withholding information about the Russia investigation from President-elect Trump and his incoming team. Consistent with this White House strategy session, Comey did not actually brief Trump about the Russia investigation; he buzzed Trump with an allegation that the Putin regime might be in possession of blackmail material — the pee tape — that it could hold over Trump’s head in order to get him to do the Kremlin’s bidding. The point was not to give information. It was to get information: to provoke Trump into making incriminating or false statements, or statements evincing consciousness of guilt. Outside Trump Tower was an FBI car equipped with a laptop so Comey could immediately write an investigative report. The director and his team treated this as an investigative event, not a briefing. Comey memorialized Trump’s statements, as well as his physical and emotional reaction to the suggestion that Moscow might have video of the soon-to-be president cavorting with prostitutes. If a case had ever been made on Trump, Comey could then have been a witness, with his investigative report available to refresh his recollection about Trump’s comments and comportment. That is one of the main reasons such reports are done.The FBI did the same thing with Flynn: a sandbag interview, against Justice Department and White House protocols, conducted after extensive planning about how to put him at ease, how to make sure he doesn’t think he’s a suspect, how to refrain from advising him of his rights. Then, knock him back on his heels by portraying a legitimate conversation between the incoming national-security adviser and the Russian ambassador as if it were nefarious. Don’t play him the recording or show him the transcript; just grill him and hope he says something incriminating or redolent of guilty knowledge. And then, instead of following the FBI rules for promptly completing interview reports, generate another “deliberative draft” that can be kneaded for a few weeks . . . with the help of a former prosecutor (Lisa Page) who serves as counsel to the second-highest-ranking FBI official (then–deputy director Andrew McCabe). There is still plenty of paper trail to uncover. I haven’t even referred here to the Steele dossier, which investigators knew was bogus but relied on to seek — and obtain — court-authorized eavesdropping. I haven’t mentioned the unmasking of Trump officials indirectly targeted in foreign-intelligence collection. We haven’t considered the collaboration of American and foreign intelligence agencies in the scrutiny of Trump, or the collaboration of Obama officials and congressional Democrats, as well as the media, to promote the narrative that Trump was a Russian operative. There is much still to learn and to weigh. But this much we know: In the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, President Obama authorized his administration’s investigative agencies to monitor his party’s opponent in the presidential election, on the pretext that Donald Trump was a clandestine agent of Russia. Realizing this was a gravely serious allegation for which there was laughably insufficient predication, administration officials kept Trump’s name off the investigative files. That way, they could deny that they were doing what they did. Then they did it . . . and denied it. ANDREW C. MCCARTHY is a senior fellow at National Review Institute

The New Old ObamaWhy is Barack Obama reemerging with greater frequency now? There are a few reasonable suppositions. By Victor Davis Hanson August 2, 2020 In his latest incarnation as president emeritus and corporate multimillionaire community activist, we are reminded of the earlier Barack Obama of “get in their face,” “take a gun to a knife fight,” and “punish our enemies” vintage. From time to time, Obama ventures from his hilltop, seaside, $12 million “you didn’t build that” Martha’s Vineyard Estate or his tony Washington, D.C. $8 million “spread the wealth” mansion to lecture the nation on all of its racist sins, past and present. In these outings, he seeks to advise lesser folk on how we can still find redemption (make Puerto Rico a state?), given that his own eight years as president apparently proved that the United States remains hopelessly captive to the spirit of Bull Connor and that a president such as himself—starting out with complete control of the Congress—had no power to change much. His latest weaponization of the funeral of John Lewis revealed all the Obama signature characteristics. Fantasy Obama knows that the Trump Administration’s use of federal marshals to protect a federal courthouse in Portland from nonstop street efforts to burn it down, along with its occupants, is not analogous to the Democratic Alabama Governor George Wallace, an honored speaker at the 1972 McGovern-run Democratic convention: “[Wallace] may be gone, but we can witness our federal government sending agents to use tear gas and batons against peaceful demonstrators.” He knows that such protesters in our major cities loot, burn, blind, maim, and occasionally kill people and are hardly “peaceful.”He knows that asking for an ID at the polls, in the fashion of cashing a check, buying a beer, or getting a prescription filled is not racist (unless he believes that minorities are currently deprived of prescriptions, alcohol sales, or cashing checks), and are not “restrictive,” much less do they attack “our voting rights with surgical precision, even undermining the Postal Service in the run-up to an election that’s gonna be dependent on mail-in ballots so people don’t get sick.” He knows that if there are voting irregularities in November, they will come mostly from the Left and through the very mail-in balloting and vote harvesting they advocate. We in California’s 21st Congressional District can attest to that, after having witnessed winner and incumbent Republican David Valadao in 2018 see his sizable lead mysteriously erode over the next several weeks as batches of harvested and mail-in ballots steadily appeared until his challenger won by a few hundred votes. Obama knows that making Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico states is simply a way of gaining four automatic left-wing senators to take back the Senate. He knows that what he calls “partisan gerrymandering” is an ancient bipartisan enterprise, without which there would now not be a very sizable black caucus in the House. He knows that what he suddenly now calls the “Jim Crow relic” Senate filibuster is a traditional and bipartisan lever. And so he knows that if Trump should be reelected, and should he retain a thin margin in the Republican Senate, and perhaps win back the House, and chose to end the now apparently racist filibuster to greenlight the Trump agenda, Obama would be the first to pivot and scream to high heaven about “partisanship” and “racism.” Obama knows all this. Thus his politicizing riff is cynical and in some ways a cruel hijacking of a funeral. Exemption Ex-presidents—think Ford, Reagan, or the two Bushes—usually do not attack sitting presidents, unless of course they are morally superior liberals such as Carter, Clinton, and Obama. And funerals are usually not appropriate venues for politics.  Politicizing a death, at least since Mark Antony’s weaponization of the funeral of Julius Caesar, has been frowned upon—except in the case of the late Paul Wellstone, John McCain, or John Lewis.  The eulogist can be exempt from the rules of decorum to go after a president, such as George W. Bush or Donald Trump. Obama reached a new low in cramming into a funeral eulogy the accusation that we are back to the spirit of Bull Connor, while jamming an entire political laundry list of policy preferences, from D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood and ending the filibuster, to mail-in voting and ending voting ID requirements, into praise of the dead. Irony Obama has always been blind and deaf to the irony of himself. He strikes a moral pose about election sanctity at precisely the time serial disclosures reveal that he knew of—or indeed ordered—the weaponization of the FBI, and perhaps the Justice Department and CIA, in order to go after an opposition presidential campaign that by design further led to the subversion of a presidential transition and indeed a presidency itself.  When the truth is finally known, the nation will learn that the Obama Administration was one of the most corrupt in its history by politicizing the IRS and FBI, surveilling the media, unmasking and leaking the names of U.S. citizens swept up in likely illegal surveillance, destroying the sanctity of the FISA court, and spying on a political campaign with the intent of destroying it before a U.S. election. He laments our “Bull Connor America.” But as president, with a veto-proof Democratic Congress in 2009, he expended no effort to extend statehood to Puerto Rico or Washington, D.C., or to demand an end to the filibuster, or to enact anything he now insists we must do. Partly the reason is that Obama is a politician, first, who wished to get reelected, and considered any of the nostrums that he now pushes on others an anathema to his own 2012 ambitions. Obama is also mostly a creature of rhetoric, and he knows that talking about pushing an agenda is easy to do now, but in the past it was hard to do the political work to see it enacted. He is also ignorant of history and so refutes his own premises. The advocacy of John Lewis and others like him convinced the timid Kennedy Administration to break with their kindred Democratic Southern brethren and in 1963 nationalize state troops to ensure calm in the streets and the civil rights of the oppressed.  How odd that Obama both praises such past federal activism and yet currently defends states-rights mayors and governors who nullify local, state, and federal law to the point of forcing the federal government to save its own property and personnel from mayhem. Hypocrisy About 7,000 African Americans are murdered each year in the streets of our cities, mostly by other young African American males. About nine unarmed African Americans died last year in police custody, fewer than unarmed whites who were killed by the police, and a smaller number percentage-wise of blacks who were arrested in general by the police for suspected crimes.  If Obama is truly concerned about the deaths of young African Americans he could return to Chicago in its hour of need, as people of color are currently being gunned down in the streets—even at funerals far less secure and guarded than those at which Obama speaks. He could revisit his Chicago home, use his moral bona fides to restart his community activist career, and seek to quell the violence and save the lives of the innocent and unprotected—all concerns far more vital to the nation than ending the filibuster. He would receive bipartisan and overwhelming public support for such hard work. He has already reached the point at which he once advised us that one has made enough money. He is perhaps becoming isolated in living in non-diverse suburbs and estates of the sort that his erstwhile housing czars in his administration once deplored, and tried to integrate by  executive orders. Instead, he now and then pops up into a politically explosive scenario at a volatile time, adopts the cadence and patois of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his “spiritual mentor,” and begins his ministerial pontificating, as he seeks to wow the crowd with the old magic—soon only to disappear back to Martha’s Vineyard. Why is Obama reemerging with greater frequency now? There are a few reasonable suppositions. He has already made tens of millions of dollars in the last four years and now believes that he has the “security” of being a multimillionaire several times over, and so can once again dabble in politics. His party has moved hard Left. And he rues now that he did not then lead the cultural revolution during his own tenure, given his community organizing Bill Ayers-youth, which as a badge of honor we should expect will now no longer be airbrushed away. His early revolutionary cred will likely resurface as the audacity of hope becomes the audacity of woke. He resents those like “the squad” who usurped his hard-Left brand, which was tarnished during his past few years in his period of “not the time to profit” corporate profiteering. He thinks Biden suddenly can now win. Yet better than any he knows that Biden is challenged and is a useful vessel. Thus, he envisions his sudden behind-the-scenes role as substantial. He can piggyback on the cultural revolution this summer and then claim that he helped “deliver” the progressive and identity politics vote—and thus becomes an active wise-man advisor to a challenged Biden. Then again, there is always the chance that Biden’s unbreakable oath to appoint a woman as vice presidential nominee and his inference that she will be an African-American opens up all sort of wild card possibilities to Obama—given that he knows best the VP slot could well be a quasi-presidential nomination, given Biden’s cognitive issues, given that Biden is now ahead in the polls, and given that there is some chance that all the candidates whom Biden considers may have high negatives in his internal polling. And thus Michelle Obama, the most popular woman in today’s polls, could “rescue” the Democrats, unite the party, and finish out an Obama 16-year term, with the last eight-year regnum revealing the inner and true Obama that was stymied the first go around. These “are such stuff as dreams are made of.”

FW: Why Prevention Never Goes Anywhere. It’s bad for businessInboxxpbyrne@bex.netJul 23, 2020, 10:25 AM (11 days ago)to me  From: pbyrne@bex.net <pbyrne@bex.net>  Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 11:21 AM To: ‘L. B. Rosenberg’ <lbr.cornerstone@gmail.com>; ‘Michelle Cotterman’ <cotterman21@gmail.com>; ‘Cathy Stein’ <kasia6901@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Why Prevention Never Goes Anywhere. It’s bad for business Dear Bishop, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia probably is the leading transplant center for children in the world. Mass General is the “largest transplant center in New England.” Langone is a leading transplant center in State of New York. 34 Billion dollars was billed for organ transplantation in 2017 (most recent) in USA. A root of the System of Death we are in is based on fake death called “brain death,” which means beating heart, circulation, respiration and organs suitable for transplantation. Paul A. Byrne, M.D.www.lifeguardianfoundation.org   From: L. B. Rosenberg <lbr.cornerstone@gmail.com>  Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 10:34 AM To: Michelle Cotterman <cotterman21@gmail.com>; Cathy Stein <kasia6901@yahoo.com>; Paul Byrne <pbyrne@bex.net> Subject: Fwd: Why Prevention Never Goes Anywhere. It’s bad for business  From:  Date: July 23, 2020 at 10:13:52 AM EDT To: Subject: Why Prevention Never Goes Anywhere.  It’s bad for business https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/Dispatches from the War: Three men who control corporate AmericaJul22Why did mega-corporations accept the Covid lockdowns?by Jon RappoportJuly 22, 2020(To join our email list, click here.)Airlines, hotel chains—you name it, they all folded when the lockdowns were imposed. They closed up shop, they took a knee, they opted for bailouts. Why?The CEOs of these corporations are supposed to be hard chargers and ruthless operators. Why didn’t they rebel?I could cite several reasons. Here I want to focus on a little-known and staggering story.It starts with an analogy. Imagine an employee of a company who is motivated to speak out against the lockdowns and go public. Then he thinks about the owner of the company. That owner happens to sit on the board of a large hospital.Uh oh. That owner is SOLIDLY WIRED into official medical reality. He isn’t going to appreciate a naysayer who says the lockdowns are a ridiculous and destructive overreach. Better to stay quiet. Better to fit in and go along.Okay? Well, it so happens that three of the most powerful corporate bosses in America DO have deep connections to major hospitals, and these three men run corporations that OWN CORPORATE AMERICA.What?The three men are Larry Fink, Joseph Hooley, and Mortimer Buckley.Buckley is the CEO of the Vanguard Group. Hooley is the CEO of State Street. Fink is the CEO of BlackRock.These three companies are investment funds. Financial services companies.Buckley is a board member of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. From 2011 to 2017, he was chairman of the hospital’s board of trustees. Hooley serves on the president’s council of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Fink is the co-chair of the NYU Langone Medical Center board of trustees.Let’s look at their companies: State Street, BlackRock, and Vanguard—known as The Big Three. The reference is an article at theconversation.com, “These three firms own corporate America,” 5/19/17, by Jan Fichtner, Eelke Heemskerk, and Javier Garcia-Bernardo.“Together, BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street have nearly US$11 trillion in assets under management.”“We found that the Big Three, taken together, have become the largest shareholder in 40% of all publicly listed firms in the United States.”“In 2015, these 1,600 American firms [the 40%] had combined revenues of about US$9.1 trillion, a market capitalisation of more than US$17 trillion, and employed more than 23.5 million people.”“In the S&P 500 – the benchmark index of America’s largest corporations – the situation is even more extreme. Together, the Big Three are the largest single shareholder in almost 90% of S&P 500 firms, including Apple, Microsoft, ExxonMobil, General Electric and Coca-Cola.”“What is undeniable is that the Big Three do exert the voting rights attached to these shares. Therefore, they have to be perceived as de facto owners by corporate executives.”“Whether or not they sought to, the Big Three have accumulated extraordinary shareholder power, and they continue to do so…In many respects, the index fund boom is turning BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street into something resembling low-cost public utilities with a quasi-monopolistic position.”If the CEO of a corporation whose main shareholder is The Big Three thinks about rebelling against the official medical consensus…And he knows that The Big Three bosses are heavily wired into the US medical complex…That CEO has one more reason, among others, to forget about being an old-time hard charger. He has one more reason to swallow his anger when he’s told to lock down and shut down. He has one more reason to knuckle under and play the game. He has one more reason to surrender to a story about a virus and Fauci and Bill Gates. He has one more reason to stand down and stand aside and watch economic devastation sweep over the land.SOURCES:https://theconversation.com/these-three-firms-own-corporate-america-77072https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/about-us/leadership/larry-finkhttps://www.bostonfed.org/people/bank/joseph-hooley.aspxhttps://www.fnlondon.com/articles/meet-the-new-ceo-of-vanguard-20170714  — L.B. RosenbergBusiness Consultant 5014-16th Ave #359  |  Brooklyn NY 11204718.C.N.STONE (718- 267-8663)lbr.cornerstone@gmail.com

Share Our Stories! – Click Here

Dr. Judy Mikovits Says That It’s Likely That Most  Who Take The Vaccine Will Die…50 Million

By Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum. 7-31-20

This may be one of the most important articles I’ve ever written. With all the fear mongering about the corona virus plague it has obviously been known this was intentional as its been advertised by Bill Gates it would come at this time  and it was funded.  No need to add all the volume of videos and emails you can google but here’s one for reference https://goldenageofgaia.com/ 2020/04/18/dr-rashid-buttar- exposes-bill-gates-dr-fauci- and-falsified-pandemic- numbers/  I’m concerned that every single person who tested the vaccine, 100%,  had reactions and now Dr. Judy Mikovits says in this video probably all who take the vaccine, especially if mandated,  50 million people, will die.  You may remember in developing this virus she was asked to make it more dangerous where it would kill faster and when she refused to  sign manipulated  data was thrown in jail.  When released she was told she would be returned if she told anyone.  Instead she wrote the book and set up an organization to educate physicians. They tried to silence her by trying to discredit her. She is a brave woman, a virologist, and simply came out stronger making a documentary, “Plandemic” and constantly being interviewed.   Here is the video about the vaccine.   https ://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/ search?fr=yhs-iba-1&hsimp=yhs- 1&hspart=iba&p=dr.+judy+ mikovits#action=view&id=22& vid= 44450d01e0f4d62897d02313788212 6e  Two days ago  I released a video from the front line physicians saying they had a cure for the corona virus and one physician said she was outraged by the censorship and they were curing all their patients and nobody died and no one was wearing a mask.   She was appalled she was threatened for giving the facts and letting people know there was a cure.  Meanwhile Big Pharma wants it off the market.  The video was going viral  and immediately was censored, even the one I had.  Today all the doctors who had the original press conference came back and said they would not put up with the censorship and told who censored and again said they had the cure for the corona virus.  They were infuriated because they are on the front line and curing the corona virus.  One doctor said you can’t shut up all the doctors, and even ask your own physician.   Here is the video today from all these physicians:   https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=cY0TH-DTYEI&feature=youtu.be     What is the cure?  HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE and zinc they mentioned. You may remember that Dr. Russell Blaylock listed the things you take and it included zinc because it stops mutation.   Here is an interesting subject completely apart from the subject of the plague.  I have an anticancer cure I used and published in two of Dr. Leonard Coldwell’s books:  “The Only Answer to Cancer” and “The Only Answer to The Only Cancer  Patient Cure”.  It’s mainly herbs but it has one drug – Quinine.  You use to be able to get it in the drug store without a prescription.  People used it for things like leg cramps.  Once the FDA found out about the formula Quinine could only be gotten by prescription.  That was no problem as patients just asked their physician for an Rx.  Then a note came out that you could only prescribe it for malaria and other devastating diseases.  I wondered what was the big deal about Quinine.   Of interest is that  Hydroxychloroquine is an antimalarial drug derived from quinine.  Herbalist Earl Rayburn had 800 letters from victims who were dying of cancer who were cured on my formula.   The FDA found out he supplied the herbs to make the formula so they sent the Forestry to kill his acreage of herbs.  It’s a small town and so many people know each other.  One of the men from the Forestry came to Earl and said:  “I have to apologize for what we did.  The FDA made us do it,  Big Pharma said they couldn’t have cancer cured.”  They were basically trying to kill black snake root that grows there and Earl tried to buy it on the Internet but it turned out to be Rhubarb.  Earl bought herbs trying to keep the formula going but the FDA fined him $75,000 and then made him sign a paper he wouldn’t tell anyone.  Then they expunged the record.  Earl is dead today.  His wife didn’t know why he died but I told her I had promised him I would expose the FDA for what they did and published it so his children would know what a great man their father was trying to help all he met.  I named the formula for my mother, Eve Geller, who died of  breast cancer.  Simply, cancer cannot live in purified blood.  Big Pharma pushes chemotherapy even though studies show all it does is spread the disease.  It killed my mother.  Hydroxychloroquine is also used for Lupus and Rheumatoid Arthritis,  This is where aspartame is a connection.  As Dr. James Bowen said: ” The ability of methyl alcohol/formaldehyde to create antigenicity, especially as combined in APM molecules is so great as to cause severe autoimmune reactions to the tissues deformed by formaldehyde polymerization, adduct formation. The immune system turns against the victim’s tissues: Lupus.”  I also wrote a paper on aspartame and the corona virus:  https://rense.com/general96/ aspartame-inflames- coronavirus.php  Today the aspartame pandemic is called Rumsfeld’s Plague.  The medical text on it is “Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic” by H. J. Roberts, M.D.,  Other texts are “While Science Sleeps: A Sweetener Kills” by Dr. Woodrow Monte and “Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills by Dr. Russell Blaylock.   I sincerely hope the above information will help the public.  You no longer can just accept what people say, you must do your own research.  Scientific fraud so many times results in death.  In reading about  the plague of 1918 an  article exclaimed it was the  cure that killed so many.   Dr.  Cameron Kyle- Sidell of New York is warning that critically ill coronavirus patients are being inadvertently harmed by the very same breathing machines being used to keep them alive. He said 50% died.   In the case of the corona virus they have censoring of  information that may save your life and threatening of physicians.  You must do your own research.  Here is a report from “No Fake News” on the drug:  https://blog.nomorefakenews. com/2020/07/30/hcq-covid-fda- and-pharma-and-all-its-whores/  Stephen Fox, (Mission Possible New Mexico and Founder, United Nations Santa Fe)  has filed a brief with the International Court of Justice on aspartame.  https://www.opednews.com/ articles/Brief-Submission-for- Inter-by-Stephen-Fox-92- Aspartame-Poisoning-Symptoms- According-To-Fda_Arthur-Hull- Hayes-Fda-Commissioner- Approved-Aspart_Donald- Rumsfeld_Dr-Betty-Martini- Founder-Mission-Possible- 200729-410.html   The Aspartame Pandemic or Rumsfeld’s Plague is pure genocide, and is being used unlabeled.  People have been dropping dead, going blind and suffering with methanol poisoning for 40 years from aspartame.    The FDA is blaming it on a small amount of methanol  in hand sanitizers: https://www.dermatologytimes. com/view/fda-expands-toxic- hand-sanitizer-list  Look for the facts.  If you see someone calling people names, trying to discredit them and making them out as a conspiracy theorist its usually the modus operandi of industry.   Sincerely,  Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder  Mission Possible World Health Intl  9270 River Club Parkway  Duluth, Georgia 30097  770 242-2599  www.mpwhi.com  More information on www.wnho.net and www.holisticmed.com/aspartame

MODERATION IS MISSINGBy Hal MorrisJuly 30, 2020 It troubles me when I see hundreds of young college-aged students intermixing with BLM goons and ANTIFA radicals. Whether they be Black, White, Asian, or Hispanic, I’m still troubled and wonder how this could be. By observation alone, one could conclude they represent educated young people of the middle and upper class. They have cellphones, headphones, and plenty of free time to protest, riot and burn buildings, and disrespect law and order. They are not moderate. They represent committed Marxists, attempting a revolution. You watch burnings and listen to the anger, language, and venom spewed out without understanding why. I need to know the motivator that leads them to believe that this country, primarily a white male systemic racist society, needs to be overthrown. I lived in this country all my 85 years while traveling extensively abroad. I’ve worked in education and, after reviewing my career, have to conclude that my chosen profession is a significant contributor to the malaise we now experience. After extensive thinking and discussion, I now better understand the plan that unfolded. Say hello to Saul Alinsky. Saul Alinsky was a bright young man born in Chicago, Illinois, shortly after the turn of the century and attended the University of Chicago in the 1920s. Alinsky enrolled at the University of Chicago and became influenced by a communist professor, Robert Park. He quickly internalized the concepts, converted to becoming a community organizer working with unions.  As he aged, Alinsky deserves credit for playing a significant role in bringing the idea of an internal revolution to America. This revolution would not take the shape of an armed rebellion but would unfold slowly and patiently through the infiltration of people and ideas into government and social institutions’. After the First World War ended in 1918, many intellectuals in the west became fascinated by Russian Communism and the Idealistic Utopian Concept promised by Marx and Engles. Even as Communism struggled in Russia, Alinsky involved himself in implementing their ideas in America.  As the revolutionary ideas first became popular among the pseudo-intellectuals, teaching in universities and intellectual gatherings in coffee houses near universities. Slowly the plan took shape to promote the concept by infiltrating colleges, universities, and unions to spread the ideas and recruit converts to the movement. Over the years until he died in 1977, Alinsky altered activism in America by reshaping community organizers’ vehicle, using organizing tactics similar to labor unions. In 1966 he published Reveille for Radicals that laid out the blueprint for effective organizing. His second offering, Rules for Radicals released shortly before his death in 1976, became the bible that radicals depend upon today.  The salient part of the plan was to infiltrate the movement into higher education, public education, and governments. This approach takes time to be successful and suffered setbacks (Soviet-German Pact 1939, McCarthy hearings 50s), but patience is a virtue, and Marxists have patience and strong goal organization. By correctly identifying education as an essential vehicle to spread the movement, the planners hit upon the viable strategy to use recruiting converts. Alinsky, young and fresh, bought into the idea that a successful internal revolution, not an armed revolt, was the solution in the long run and indicated in his writings the need for patience. Concentrating at the university level, the recruitment of College and University teachers was at the very top of priorities. They teach teachers. Slowly colleges and universities were duped into hiring new subject assistant professors, clandestinely hiding their political affiliations. The process of altering the curriculum that reflects dissatisfaction with what exists was accelerated. Graduates, favorable to Marxist ideas, spread out from their established a foothold in higher education by the start of the Second World War. Next came the entertainment industry. The planners knew that the movie industry, especially with the emerging popularity of sound, was an essential vehicle for influencing the public as to the movement’s virtues. As later revealed in congressional investigations, screen and stage writers used their skills to change public opinion.  After the War, the government offered all veterans a “GI Bill that financed a college education for literally millions of returning veterans, who otherwise could never have afforded a college education. Higher education enrollments soared during the 1950s, and so more students started to become exposed to the new doctrine of Communism and liberalism now defined as less threatening Socialism. Soon the “baby boomers” arrived, ready for public schools starting in the 60s and 70s.  Public school enrolment grew beyond expectations, and liberalism increased. Many new schools were built and staffed by liberal graduates from our colleges, and the cycle continued. The plan was working. The liberal protests during the Vietnamese War and the Chicago democratic convention riots revealed to the country that a new wave of thinking and values was emerging. Student liberalism on college campuses gave students exposure to protests, draft card burning, notoriety, and free expression. Protesting against government and burning flags and draft cards became routine. Step by step, over the years, the growing liberal movement has dramatically influenced permissive parenting. That way, today, affluent liberal college students feel entitled, expect to be pampered, want for nothing, are responsible for nothing, and act accordingly. Being schooled in the Alinsky method implies you are not moderate. Today in cities and campuses across the college protests, have been seduced, for the first time, as vehicles for political advancement. What is worse, a radical group, ANTIFA, has used Alinsky indoctrinated students, many of whom have no jobs, little responsibilities, and unmarketable skills. They are now fronting a violent socialist revolutionary movement. An editorial in the Washington Examiner (June 23, 2020) states, “Given how much schools and colleges focus on racism in American history, it’s no surprise that the mob assumes any old statue it sees must be of somebody irredeemable.” Their protest efforts to assist ANTIFA is in the name of free speech and right to assembly, values in the constitution they are trying to change. Students who don’t have jobs, live off student loans, receive parental support, or don’t go to class while getting paid by politicians to protest, riot and loot are having fun.  These young, newly indoctrinated know-nothings establish “free zones” or political anarchy in cities like Portland, Milwaukee, or Seattle, where chaos reigns. They don’t march in Chicago for the families of Black killed by Blacks. Using the mobility of the internet, they step out for whoever pays them, whether it be Soros or hidden payments funneled through third parties. Slick Congressional Democrats stand silently by as the protesters carry out their desires, safe they think from being incriminated, protected by an absent press reporting the news accurately.  The media makes them into heroes. As “peaceful protester’s,” they enjoy dressing up in combat boots, black sweaters, pants, masks, and hoods, carrying incendiary devices. When arrested, they cry and whimper. They’re not so brave when taken down as they are breaking into a local store or business. Unfortunately, after an arrest, many Democrat/Socialist elected local district attorneys bought off by radical funding from George Soros, (worth 8.3 billion)do not want to prosecute. Democrat/Socialist Party has a blind eye to the unruly behaviors of ANTIFA and the Racists BLM hypocrites. They ardently believe it is to their advantage to keep race riots operating through the election. They want the country to suffer economically and lose more jobs and keep unemployment at record levels. AOC summarized, “whats the loss of a few jobs if we reach our goal of toppling Trump.” It matters less to the unemployed rioters; their motto is: “What Me Worry?” The Black Lives Matter, protesters demand Whites apologize for their White privilege. What sickens me is that many White liberals get on their knees and apologize, schooled in White racist and White privilege nonsense. BLM beat the drums for abolishing or defunding police. BLM wants to defund and eliminate the very authority that protects black neighborhoods, victimized by murders of Black by Blacks, drugs, and robberies. How’s that for logic? Black protesters break into and destroy businesses owned by struggling Black families, that provide services to predominately black neighborhoods. This madness that the traitorous Democrats/Socialists Politicians label as a myth or peaceful protest is rationalized as reasonable because they think it helps reach the goal of toppling President Trump. No longer can any Democrat/Socialists candidates for the presidency or congress attach moderate to their name. They support a revolution and are a far-left party.  How any reasonable, informed voter can be supportive of disrespectful Congressmen Nadler or Schiff or Senator Schumer is beyond reason. The Democratic/Socialist Caucus is a disgrace. The Republican Party must stand up to the Bullies and go on the offensive. The Republican-controlled senate needs to flood the house with conservative legislation to force Democrat/Socialists to stand up and be counted. Expose the hypocrisy of their plan and platform. Show more of the TV clips that expose their duplicity and lies. There were once two political parties, one conservative, (Republican) the other, liberal (Democrat). Each party contained moderate members and leaders who served in congress. For the good of the country, they would meet and reach compromises over differences to make good things happen.  Since the election of Obama, a clandestine socialist, who stated to the Republicans, “elections have consequences,” the Democrat/Socialist opposition has done nothing but obstruct and severely damaged this country. Most importantly, their actions have severely damaged our creditability worldwide and reduced our allies’ confidence in trusting our decisions. If you think you there are moderate Democrats today, you’re sadly wrong. There are no longer moderate Democrats. What we see today is either a far, far left Democrat or just a plain leftist Democrat. You’re not even a far-left Democrat because your party’s new label is the Democrat/Socialists Party. The death of moderates is not an accident. It takes years of patience and devotion to a cause of the revolution. To some degree, we let our apathy help it along. Indifference, to what is happening in our schools, contributes to the death of moderation, especially true in the Democrat/Socialist Party. Please make no mistake what has and is happening to our educational systems is causing great harm to our country. This insidious invasion of students’ minds, from elementary to the university level, is fueling the riotous behavior and conversion of our youth to endorse Socialism and the disrespect for authority as norms. Teachers, as undergraduates, blinded by continual exposure to a thesis of the wrongs of our country, ignore the strengths we brought to the world. Instead, they instill in our young a distaste for free enterprise and believe we built our White Racist country upon the backs of slaves and poor oppressed working people.  My most recent discussions with people in the field, reveal a willingness on the part of moderate parents, boards of education, and school administrators, to permit the ongoing prostitution of our curriculums. Elementary instruction no long emphasizes the need to view both sides of issues. Whether it is history or the environment, elementary school students hear only one view of the story. Secondary school instructors now feel free to slant current events, issues with climate, and environmental problems reinforcing a false narrative.  Equality of positions and “two sides to every question,” at one time an essential responsibility of teaches, is no longer the norm. We accept, without question, a 1619 curriculum that emphasizes a fake one-sided story that America was the foundation of slavery. Sequential history is transforming propaganda into historical fact. Trained educators and Marxist historians, current educators, evidently agree with the new narrative.  Stories abound of students, punished and disciplined for having conservative views, disagreeing with their teachers Ultra-liberal and their Marxist oriented views. Extreme liberal teachers shun traditional teachers with more conservative views. University departments refuse undergraduate and graduate student’s opportunities to listen to conservative speakers. What is happening to free discourse and independent thinking? School administrators and college administrators comply with directives issued by student protesters such as ANTIFA and BLM thugs. Rather than being a source of enlightenment, with a few exceptions, our universities have become one-sided in the Marxist, far-left views. A legislative review is needed to question whether the government should use taxpayer monies to fund biased universities and colleges. There is no excuse for funding programs that disrespect our history, slant narratives, discourage free expression, and disparage our form of government and economy. Saul Alinsky must be proud as a peacock as to the turn of events. Events he outlined in his plans for revolution. It is never too late to make right a wrong. We must use our conservative voices to end this malpractice.  One can only imagine what Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy Tip Oneill would say if they were alive today. The moderate, liberal party they knew is no more. Where did they go? Perhaps Alinsky took it with him and buried it. Only by getting out the conservative and moderate Republican vote can we restore sanity to this great country. Let’s do it!

SMattacchione

Watch the video please.

“The Mantra  by all medical personel “ Vaccines are safe and effective” the science proves it?

Untill in open court the CDC ( which yearly sells 5 billion dollars in vaccines) concedes it has no science no studies to support their claims!

We should all read this and weep.

Generations of our children , grandchildren, and now great grandchildren,condemned, damaged, and for what, money!

Next time someone talks to me of the science behind vaccines I will vomit!

The Center for Disease Control admitted in a federal lawsuit that is has no scientific studies to support its claim that vaccines given to infants don’t cause autism.

The lawsuit, filed by the non-profit Informed Consent Action Network, sought for the CDC to present evidence to back up the claim on its official website that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism.”

From ICAN’s press release:

The CDC claims on its website that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism.” Despite this claim, studies have found between 40% and 70% of parents with an autistic child continue to blame vaccines for their child’s autism, typically pointing to vaccines given during the first six months of life.

In the summer of 2019, ICAN submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the CDC for “All studies relied upon by CDC to claim that the DTaP vaccine does not cause autism.”

Despite months of demands, the CDC failed to produce a single study in response to these FOIA requests.

ICAN was therefore forced to sue the CDC in federal court, where the CDC finally conceded, in a stipulation signed by a Federal court judge, that it has no studies to support that any of these vaccines do not cause autism.

Silvio

CDC Concedes in Federal Court It Does Not Have Studies to Support its Claim “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”

  AUSTIN, TX (March 5, 2020) — In a federal lawsuit filed by the non-profit Informed Consent  Action Network (ICAN), the Center for Disease Control (CDC) has conceded it has no scientific studies to back up its long-declared assertion that vaccines given to babies do not cause autism. The CDC claims on its website that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism.”

1 Despite this claim, studies have found between 40% and 70% of parents with an autistic child continue to blame vaccines for their child’s autism, typically pointing to vaccines given during the first six months of life.

2 Vaccines given during the first six months of life, according to the

CDC’s childhood vaccine schedule, include three doses each of DTaP, HepB, Hib, PCV13 and IPV, for a total of fifteen doses in these six months.

3 In the summer of 2019, ICAN submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the CDC for “All studies relied upon by CDC to claim that the DTaP vaccine does not cause 

autism.”

4 ICAN also submitted this same request for HepB, Hib, PCV13 and IPV, as well as requesting the CDC provide studies to support the cumulative exposure to these vaccines during the first six months of life do not cause autism.

5 Despite months of demands, the CDC failed to produce a single study in response to these FOIA requests.

6 ICAN was therefore forced to sue the CDC in federal court, where the CDC finally conceded, in a stipulation signed by a Federal court judge, that it has no studies to support that any of these vaccines do not cause autism.

7

1 https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html

 

2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685182; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25398603; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16547798; https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448378/

3https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-child-combined-schedule.pdf  

 

4 https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/001-COMPLAINT-against-Centers-for-Disease-Control-and-Prevention.pdf 

 

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7https://www.icandecide.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Stipulation-and-Order-Fully-Executed.pdf 

 

In the stipulation, the CDC was only able to identify 20 studies: > One relating to MMR (a vaccine ICAN did not challenge); > Thirteen relating to thimerosal (an ingredient not in any of the vaccines ICAN queried); > Five relating to both MMR and thimerosal; and > One relating to antigen (not a vaccine) exposure. On the CDC’list of studies was a recent review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), paid for by the CDC, which conducted a comprehensive review for studies relating to whether DTaP does or does not cause autism.

8 The result was that the IOM could not identify a single study to support that DTaP does not cause autism.

9 Instead, the only relevant study the IOM could identify found an association between DTaP and autism.

10 In other words, the CDC listed a review in response to the FOIA requests that proves that there are no studies to support that DTaP does not cause autism. “The CDC complains that those raising concerns about vaccine safety are unscientific and misinformed,” says Del Bigtree, the Emmy-winning producer of “Vaxxed” and host of the weekly online fact-based science and health news program

“The HighWire.” “But when we asked the CDC for studies to support its claim that ‘vaccines

 do not cause autism,’it is clear that their claim is not grounded in science. “When it comes to autism, vaccines are the one suspected culprit that the CDC claims to have exhaustively investigated,” 

 Bigtree explains, “yet the CDC could not provide a single study to support that any of the vaccines given during the first six months of life do not cause autism. “The most recent data from CDC shows that 1 in 36 children born this year in the USA will develop autism,” 

Bigtree says.

11“This is a true epidemic. If the CDC had spent the same resources studying vaccines and autism, as it did waging a media campaign against parents that claim vaccines caused their child’s autism, the world would be a better place for everyone.”his is another of ICAN’s numerous victories again federal health agencies regarding vaccine safety. Prior victories include: > HHS concedes it has not provided a single vaccine safety report to Congress as required by the Mandate for Safer Childhood Vaccines in the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. ICAN v. H, No. 18-cv-3215 (S.D.N.Y.)

8 https://www.nap.edu/read/13164/chapter/12?term=autism#545

 

9Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db291.htm 

  The Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concedes that it does not have any clinical trials to support injecting the flu shot or Tdap vaccines into pregnant women.

ICAN v. FDA, No. 18-cv-11237 (S.D.N.Y.) > The National Institutes of Health (NIH) concedes that the Task Force on Safer Childhood Vaccines has not made a single recommendation for improving vaccine safety during the period at issue.

ICAN v. NIH, No. 18-cv-2000 (S.D.N.Y.) > The FDA, pursuant to a FOIA request from ICAN, eventually produced the clinical trials it relied upon to license the current MMR vaccine which revealed that these clinical trials had in total of less than 1,000 participants and far more adverse reactions than previously acknowledged. “The HighWire with Del Bigtree” broke this news today on its latest episode, which can be streamed on YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and its website TheHighwire.com, among other platforms.

ICAN’s initial court complaint can be found here

:

Click to access 001-COMPLAINT-against-Centers-for-Disease-Control-and-Prevention.pdf

 

The court stipulation and order can be found here:

Click to access Stipulation-and-Order-Fully-Executed.pdf

 7

U.S. GOVT LOSES LANDMARK VACCINE LAWSUIT–Huge legal Victory for Robert F Kennedy Jr and the People of America and the world

Tuesday, January 14, 2020

8:55 AM

Subject	U.S. GOVT LOSES LANDMARK VACCINE LAWSUIT–Huge legal Victory for Robert F Kennedy Jr and the People of America and the world
From	xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To
Cc	xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent	Tuesday, January 14, 2020 8:39 AM

Robert F Kennedy Jr. was part of the legal team that rained havoc upon Monsanto/Bayer  in the Johnson case last year now in the USA alone over 18,000 cases have been filed against Monsanto/Bayer, as they should be and the exposure is now well over 1 trillion dollars.

So here we have Robert F. Kennedy Jr. now winning a landmark vaccine lawsuit against the US Government.It is now only a matter of time before legal challenges are brought worldwide against governments etc.

Wonder about the trustworthiness of mainline new networks in North America and the world? Well here is the story of the century, the story proven in a USA court that vaccines are neither safe nor effective, Robert Kennedy Jr in his lawsuit demanded all the relevant US government documents that proving that all federally approved vaccines had been tested for quality ( as required by law) over the past 32 year (since 1986)that prove that ALL federally approved vaccines had in fact been tested for quality  as required by US law and the result was –NO SUCH DOCUMENTS EXIST!

U.S. GOVT LOSES LANDMARK VACCINE LAWSUIT

U.S. GOVT LOSES LANDMARK VACCINE LAWSUIT

Nov 19

Posted by Editor, cairnsnews

Forced vaccinations now can be legally stopped-no quality control for 32 years

Wide ramifications for Australia

Go to:

https://www.aimintegrativemedicine.com/aim-integrative-medicine-blog/why-kennedy-sued-the-government-over-vaccine-safety-won

http://icandecide.org/governments/

Case 1:18-cv-03215-JMF Document 18 Filed 07/09/18

Vaccine injury lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,&  Del Bigtree, producer of the suppressed anti-vaccine documentary, Vaxxed and the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) are credited with this victory. They demanded the relevant government documents proving that all federally approved vaccines had been tested for quality over the past 32 years — and there were none.

Here are the huge legal and practical implications in this legal victory for the American people:

A recent US court case revealed there has been no quality control over vaccines manufactured by big-pharma for at least 32 years. Autism rates are excepted to drop dramatically now that parents can stop the poison being injected into their kids

o This means that the US Department of Health and Human Services and all vaccine makers have been lying to the American people for over 30 years about the effectiveness and safety of vaccines; this may

ultimately mean that continuing the existence — at least in their current form — of five US “healthcare” agencies are now in doubt: the CDC, the FDA, the IOM, the NIH and the “Health” part of DHHS itself;

this may also threaten the existence of state medical boards and exclusive medical guilds like the AMA:

o This means that vaccine makers have been fraudulently exempt from what all other pharmaceutical drug makers have been forced to do concerning biannual recertification for quality and effectiveness — meaning that that their vaccines have never been tested for quality and have had no proven safety or effectiveness for over 30 years;

o This case can now be legally cited by all parents fraudulently mandated by any government/organizational regulation/requirements that they must vaccinate their children for school or any other activity to stop

the forced vaccination of their children;

o This case can now be legally cited by all employees being mandated by their employers to be vaccinated in order to retain their jobs;

o This case can now be legally cited by all those who seek compensation for vaccine injury, making it likely that the pharmacidical vaccine industry can in the near future be legally bankrupted out of existence, like Bayer-Monsanto after the landmark legal victory won by the dying landscaper in San Francisco several weeks ago, as well as their stock value plummeting precipitously;

o The future of allopathic medicine in its current form is now in doubt, as well as that of the global pharmacidical cartel, since almost all of the drugs allopathic practitioners prescribe come from pharmacidical corporations which have also committed vaccine fraud and injury;

o The existence of the deep-state corporate mainstream news media will now also be further endangered, since 70% of their income stream comes from the global pharmacidical cartel, which in America has been

responsible for 750,000-1 million human sacrifices per year for at least the past half century;

o Autism rates will now likely plummet, freeing the American people from another deep state-engineered debility, and providing further evidence of mass vaccination-caused autism;

o All government officials who have passed laws legalizing vaccine fraud at the state, national, or international level, or otherwise aided and abetted this vaccine fraud can now be charged with vaccine fraud, criminal malfeasance and in some cases, war crimes under the Nuremberg Code.

-contributed

This letter from Dawn Bell, an American health professional, warns that vaccines are not safe and become ineffective after 10 years. She says her daughter was injured by vaccination:

In the recent mumps outbreak, 100% of the mumps cases were college students, who were ALL 100% vaccinated. 90% (9 out of 10) people who died from last years flu epidemic had received the flu shot.

Herd immunity can only be achieved when 85% of the population is immune to a disease. Vaccines are only good for about 10 years, at absolute max 20 years, so most people over the age of 20 are not immune any longer. So now you have created a situation of a “false” immunity.

Those who get the chicken pox are immune for life, those who get the vax are not. I do believe, maybe to your surprise that vaccines can and have saved lives, however, think about when MD’s we’re giving out antibiotics like popcorn at the movies, it started having a bad affect on our immune systems and gut. It’s propbable to think that the same thing might start happen with the overuse of vaccines.

For really deadly diseases, hey I’m all for it, but they started making so much money that you all of a sudden had to start getting vaccines for everything, even the everyday childhood diseases and for stuff like Hep B at 1 day old, really? The rise in autism and other sensory diseases has been mind boggling, as well as childhood autoimmune disorders.

32 people get sick from ecoli and FDA tells everyone to stop buying romaine lettuce, but thousands report issues with vaccines and it’s pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Then everyone is surprised when people get upset and start asking questions.

I’m an Occupational Therapist and was all in with the vax thing, until I watched my daughter lose Speech ability directly following a vaccine. I was one telling everyone it was a coincidence until I saw it happen with my own eyes to my own kid. They have NEVER done safety studies in these vaccines have NEVER been studied being given all at once as they do.

It’s common sence that all of these vaccines given to a child with a developing immune system and neuro system might have some issues. It’s the lying about it that really has everyone worried though. When they say safety studies have been done when no one can find them, then Kennedy offers $$ for anyone who show they have been done. Of course no one could produce them so hence this lawsuit and of course, they haven’t. My OBGYN told me the flu shot was studied and proven safe during pregnancy.

So I go to work, as a nurse friend for the flu vax insert and guess what? It clearly stated it had not been studied in children or pregnant woman and if given to pregnant woman you should call and add them to a registry. Furthermore, on the front of the box, it stated to NOT give to kids under 5! I could keep going, but I’ll end with, have you watched the CDC video aproving the Hep vax?

If not, you should because it’s extremely interesting! First, they give to 1 day old babies and it’s never been approved for those under 18. When asked if it was safe to give with other vaccines they said they didn’t know but we’re making the assumption it was generally safe like other vaccines. Then when asked about the “new” mutated gene thing they said the same thing, “we’re making the assumption that’s it’s safe like other vaccines.”

They were then asked about the heart and autoimmune markers seen in their internal study and they acknowledged that they saw the markers and were going to monitor it and make determination Dec 2020 whether not there was a problem, and in the mean time it’s being given to day old babies. So yes, there are concerns that need to be addressed about the safety of vaccines and I’m thrilled that it’s finally being addressed!!!

NEWS

Archbishop Viganò: ‘Heresy, sodomy, and corruption’ are trademark of ‘deep church’

‘These three elements – heresy, sodomy, and corruption – are so recurrent that they are almost a trademark of the deep state and of the deep church’Sat Jul 25, 2020 – 1:00 am EST

By LifeSiteNews staff

---

• Share on Facebook827
• Share on Twitter
• 26
• Share via Email
• Print this Page

PETITION: Urge Catholic bishops to refuse Holy Communion to pro-abortion Biden! Sign the petition here.

July 25, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has pointed out three elements that have become what he calls the trademark of the deep Church: “heresy, sodomy, and corruption.”

In a new wide-ranging interview with Vatican expert Marco Tosatti (read full interview below), the Vatican whistleblower speaks about the deeper significance of the case of former Cardinal McCarrick in relation to the “doctrinal crisis” the Church is facing.

“There is a very strict relationship between the doctrinal crisis of the Church and the immorality of the clergy, that scandalously reaches up to the highest levels of the hierarchy. But it is also apparent that this crisis is being used by the ultra-progressive wing not only to impose a false morality together with a false doctrine, but also to irremediably discredit the Holy Church and the Papacy before the faithful and the world, through the action of its own leaders,” stated the Archbishop. 

Viganò says that a “gay lobby” has “infiltrated into the Church and that is literally terrified that good pastors will shed light on the influence that it exercises in the Secretariat of State, in the Congregations of the Roman Curia, in the Dioceses, and over the entire Church.”

“Bergoglio has surrounded himself with compromised and thus blackmailed personalities, whom he has no qualms about getting rid of as soon as they risk compromising him in his media image,” he said. SUBSCRIBEto LifeSite’s daily headlinesSUBSCRIBEU.S. Canada World Catholic

Viganò said that “these three elements – heresy, sodomy, and corruption – are so recurrent that they are almost a trademark of the deep state and of the deep church.”

***

Marco Tosatti’s introduction: The commitment of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States of America, to denounce the veil of silence and cover-ups in the management of abuse cases by members of the clergy, is well known. The spicy and annoyed response by the Vatican authorities – and in particular of various prelates – to the well-argued refutations of the combative prelate is also well known. In this interview, we investigate with His Excellency the developments in the case of former Cardinal McCarrick, also in light of a recent article at Church Militant entitled The McCarrick Bombshell. (1)

But before we get into the content of this article, let’s make a brief review. From February 21 to 24, 2019, a meeting was held in Rome of all of the Presidents of the Bishops’ Conferences on the topic of The Protection of Minors in the Church. (2) A few days earlier, on February 16, 2019, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith announced the dismissal from the clerical state of Theodore McCarrick, who was accused of other serious crimes, and added: “The Holy Father has recognized the definitive nature of this decision made in accord with law, rendering it a res iudicata (i.e., admitting of no further recourse).” (3)

Interview 

Marco Tosatti: Your Excellency, can you tell us what the news is on the McCarrick case?

Abp. C.M. Viganò: I fear that there is no news, and this is precisely the news. With the reduction of McCarrick to the lay state, it was hoped to put an end to an age-old affair that came to light with my testimony only in 2018, but everything possible has been done so that the details and results of the process did not emerge. The deception perpetrated through the strategy of proceeding administratively rather than judicially, as well as the decision of Bergoglio to authoritatively confirm the sentence [so that there was no further recourse], prevented not only McCarrick’s objective crimes from coming to light, but also the responsibility of those who for years contributed to hiding the nature and extent of the crimes he committed, protecting his accomplices and those who, with their silence, have covered up his crimes. In this way the conviction of the culprit did not clarify the obscure details. As a simple layman, Mr. McCarrick now enjoys a total freedom of movement and action, and he is still capable of intervening at every level: on the ecclesial level – even with those who covered up for him and supported him, in the Vatican and elsewhere; on the political, social and financial level, by means of the people who remained in contact with him and who received favors from him. The reduction to the lay state does not constitute in any way a medicinal punishment (this is only the necessary premise, because of the proven indignity of the offender), it does not include any form of reparative penance, nor does it render justice to the victims, but rather it grants to Mr. McCarrick the ability to continue undisturbed in his criminal activity, including sexual predation.

The administrative procedure also prevented the victims from being heard, while the testimonies gathered only recently by the lawyer Jeffrey Lena, the legal representative of the Holy See, seem to have been written under dictation: those who have suffered harassment give excuses for the delay in the publication of the Report, attributing it to the large volume of testimonies, (4) with indulgent and justifying tones that are difficult to reconcile with the extreme gravity of the crimes contested by the accused. (5) It seems that some victims, protected by a pseudonym, have lent themselves to an operation aimed at lightening the responsibility of the Holy See and validating the narrative that it maintains before public opinion. There is also the suspicion that these anonymous testimonies are pure fiction. In any case, this is a deception that must be denounced forcefully, because if the corruption of an individual prelate is a scandal, the guilty silence of the one who represents the Church is even more so. If these episodes had been verified under the Pontificate of Benedict XVI, they would have unleashed the fury of the media: their demure attitude of understanding towards Jorge Mario reveals the complicit attitude of mainstream information.

Marco Tosatti: The convocation of the summit at the Vatican was announced as the occasion of giving a firm and determined response to the clergy sexual scandals. In his introductory address, Pope Francis had declared: “In this meeting, we sense the weight of the pastoral and ecclesial responsibility that obliges us to discuss together, in a synodal, frank and in-depth manner, how to confront this evil afflicting the Church and humanity. The holy People of God looks to us, and expects from us not simple and predictable condemnations, but concrete and effective measures to be undertaken. We need to be concrete.” (6)

Abp. Viganò: The solemn proclamations which preceded, accompanied, and followed this meeting absolutely did not lead to any concrete practical action, as was hoped for. (7) Just as during the meeting no answer was given to the legitimate and insistent demands made by journalists to Bergoglio on August 26, 2018, after my denunciation. (8)

With regard to the content of the interventions at the summit, it seems that even the clergy sexual scandals, instead of toughening the penalties and making the interventions more incisive, have only led to almost obsessive repetition about the new “synodal” aspect of the Church, which corresponds to a precise intention to change her constitution in a democratic key. The Archbishop of Chicago Blase Cupich – a friend of Theodore McCarrick and the president of the Vatican summit – focused his own intervention at the summit on “synodality” as a necessary passage of “structural, legal and institutional reform” (9) of action only nominally intended to stem abuse.

Marco Tosatti: In what way can “synodality” help the bishops to resolve the problem of clergy abuse?

Abp. Viganò: The proposal to establish a commission of independent lay persons who would have overseen the work of the bishops, formulated during the plenary assembly of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in November 2018, was blocked by Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. (10) This intervention by the Vatican disavowed the proclamations of “synodality” as soon as the decisions of the Bishops’ Conferences did not coincide with what Rome wanted. However, I consider His Eminence Cardinal Ouellet to have been merely the executor of maneuvers that were imposed on him from higher up.

Marco Tosatti: Isn’t it a good thing that the Vatican is keeping decisions that involve doctrinal and moral questions to itself? 

Abp. Viganò: The authority of the Roman Pontiff, which expresses itself also through the Roman Congregations, cannot obviously be delegated to merely consultative organs that do not have any jurisdiction and that are not a part of the hierarchical structure of the Church as Christ instituted it: on this point we need to be clear. However, it is significant that the “synodal path” hoped for by the highest authorities in Rome does not encounter any obstacle, except for the moments in which it risks becoming embarrassing in the media, as in the case of a special commission appointed to receive denunciations against the bishops.

This call for “synodality” is a theme that is dear to the progressive theological current that wants to strip away the hierarchical structure of the Church. In this regard, the recent articles of Massimo Fagggioli are very clarifying. He is a professor at Villanova University, where on October 11, 2013 then-Cardinal McCarrick affirmed that he had supported the election of Cardinal Bergoglio during the General Congregations prior to the Conclave that had been held just a few months earlier, and that he had spoken with “a very influential Italian gentleman” (11) who had confided to him that within the span of five years the new pope would reform the Church.

It ought to arouse alarm that the same school today is giving disturbing signs of dissatisfaction with the work of Bergoglio, whose pontificate is defined as being “in crisis” by “deluded people” (12) – perhaps because the five years that McCarrick alluded to have not yielded the results they hoped for.

Marco Tosatti: In the address Cardinal Reinhard Marx gave about the Vatican summit, he said: “Proper legal proceedings serve to establish the truth, and form the basis for imposing a punishment which is appropriate for the relevant offence. People in the Church also need to see how this judge comes to the sentence and what the sentence is; nearly all are secret, we cannot see this.  I think that in our situation it is not good. In addition, they establish trust in the organization and its leadership. Lingering doubts about the proper conduct of court proceedings only harm the reputation and the functioning of an institution. This principle also applies to the Church.” (13)

Abp. Viganò: The publication of the procedural acts should be one of the cornerstones of the operation of transparency and honesty towards the victims of abuse by members of the clergy. It appears evident to me that the words of Cardinal Marx have been disregarded, beginning with the McCarrick case, precisely through Bergoglio’s initiative.

I further recall that Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, the President of the United States Bishops’ Conference, was disavowed with little regard by the Vatican intervention, which replaced him at the meeting in Rome the following February with Cardinals Blase Cupich and Joseph William Tobin, who are also not exempt from suspicions on their own account. These interferences, clearly desired from on high, have created a media image that does not correspond to reality, in which Bergoglio is presented as the architect of a non-existent reform, for mere propaganda purposes. Even the request made by Francis for the resignation of the entire Chilean Episcopate is part of a facade operation that is clearly denied by the facts.

I think that the two-fold measure reserved for the American and French Bishops’ Conferences is emblematic: on the U.S. side, Bergoglian interventionism prevented an operation of transparency by authority; while on the French side, it allowed clear violations of canon and civil law, permitting the investigations of the ecclesiastical forum to be entrusted to a Masonic judge who is also in favor of euthanasia. The Jacobin spirit in pursuing French clerics accused of child molestation fails however to recognize the responsibility of the Ordinaries and religious Superiors, who are guilty of those same cover-ups that are consolidating in practice also in Rome.

Marco Tosatti: And yet we have also heard the Pontiff recall, in his final address, the words he had already spoken to the Roman Curia in 2018: “The Church will never try to cover up or underestimate any case.”

Abp. Viganò: This solemn affirmation is disavowed by the most emblematic case, the very case of Theodore McCarrick, and makes us think that other interests may have led to the decision to liquidate the matter through the administrative path, and, even more gravely, without the publication of the judicial acts.

Marco Tosatti: What are those other interests, in your opinion?

Abp. Viganò: They want to focus attention on the abuse of minors, moving it away from the clear and dutiful condemnation of the homosexual behaviors which are often the cause of these abuses. For Bergoglio and his entourage sodomy is not a sin that cries out for vengeance in the presence of God, as the Catechism teaches. Bergoglio’s words on this topic – and even more the actions and words of those who surround him – unfortunately confirm that an operation of legitimization of homosexuality is currently underway, and that prelates and theologians are carrying this discussion forward who have manifested without equivocation that they are unfaithful to Catholic teaching.

Cardinal Tobin himself – whose embarrassing messages on his cell phone speak for themselves (14) – has clearly stated that he does not agree with the condemnation of sodomy present in the Catechism, refusing to define homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered.” (15) And these statements follow Cardinal Tobin’s support for the book Building a Bridge by Father James Martin, S.J., that has the same content. Thus we find a cardinal who is a friend of McCarrick lined up in favor of the LGBT movements and the Jesuit whom Bergoglio appointed as a Consultor of the Secretariat for Communications of the Holy See, even inviting him to speak at the World Encounter of Families in Dublin in 2018 and receiving him in audience. (16)

Cardinal Cupich has expressed himself many times in favor of homosexuals, and during the Synod on Youth – to which he was sent to participate by direct appointment of the Pope without having been elected to represent the American bishops – the controversial theme of homosexual relations was inserted into the Instrumentum Laboris even though no group of young people had requested it. I recall, en passant, that Cupich was imposed on the See of Chicago by Bergoglio, against the opinion of the Nunciature.

The interests are therefore clearly those of the “gay lobby” that has infiltrated into the Church and that is literally terrified that good pastors will shed light on the influence that it exercises in the Secretariat of State, in the Congregations of the Roman Curia, in the Dioceses, and over the entire Church. The obscene, even sacrilegious homoerotic fresco that Archbishop Paglia commissioned for the cathedral of Terni (17) is an arrogant ideological manifesto that no Authority has ever censured or deplored; the excessive financial affairs of the Substitute of the Secretariat of State Archbishop Edgar Peña Parra (18) – tied to Cardinal Maradiaga (involved in the scandal of homosexual abuse by his auxiliary bishop, Juan José Pineda, without there being news of any ecclesiastical initiative against him) – and the very grave accusations de Sexto that weigh on him (19) and that I have amply denounced, (20) have not in any way interrupted his cursus honorum in the Vatican; the same holds for Bishop Gustavo Óscar Zanchetta, (21) whom Bergoglio has promoted and, while a criminal trial is still pending, has recently reappointed as Assessor of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See. (22) After the order to bring all the current accounts of the dioceses and religious congregations of the world to APSA, Zanchetta finds himself managing the finances of the Church (being able to boast in his own curriculum of having the authoritative diploma of an electrician) and being at the same time easily the object of internal and external blackmail. (23) And let’s not forget the work of Archbishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari, Secretary of the Congregation of Bishops, Secretary of the Sacred College and vice-Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, in the name of and on behalf of those who elevated him to the highest ranks of the Roman Curia as a reward for his fidelity.

I believe it is essential to clarify once and for all the close link between sodomy and pedophilia, which is also confirmed by the statistics themselves: a link that the Vatican summit scrupulously kept silent about in order not to offend the current mentality that is widespread even among many prelates. But it would be hypocritical and culpable to condemn pedophilia in the wake of current civil legislation without equally condemning sodomy, which today’s aligned thought does not consider to be criminally relevant but which the Church identifies among the sins that cry out for vengeance in the presence of God.

But there is also another interest, of a political nature, that should not be underestimated…

Marco Tosatti: What are you referring to? 

Abp. Viganò: I am speaking of the political role of McCarrick, which the latest article by Church Militant also mentions: “It was McCarrick who worked out the Vatican-China accord, a mission given to him personally by Pope Francis. Francis unshackled him from Benedict-imposed restrictions just weeks after becoming pope — a fact confirmed by Abp. Viganò. Likewise, sources in China […] show that McCarrick may have been instrumental in working out the ongoing secret payments of billions of dollars from the Chinese communists to Francis’ Vatican. If that’s true (and it looks plausible given McCarrick’s communist ties and friendliness with Beijing) that could go a long way in explaining why the report remains sitting on the pope’s desk, unpublished.”

Just in the last few days the news has been divulged on Christian Todayaccording to which “China has ordered Christian villagers to renounce their faith and worship the nation’s Communist Party leaders instead.” (24) In the face of this persecution of Christians – and of those Catholics faithful to the Holy See – by the communist dictatorship, the silence of Santa Marta is literally deafening, as it was a few days ago when at his Angelus message Bergoglio omitted the appeal on behalf of Hong Kong that had been given to the press. (25) The secret agreement made between the Holy See and Beijing that has been denounced publicly by Cardinal Zen, demonstrates the subjection of the Bergoglian church to the diktats of the communist dictatorship, handing over the local Hierarchy into the hands of its persecutors and keeping silent on the human rights violations perpetrated by the regime.

I recall that in the spring of 2014 I wrote to the Secretary of State Cardinal Parolin, asking him if the provisions taken by Benedict XVI towards McCarrick were still valid or not, following an article that appeared in the Washington Times which reported about his trip to the Central African Republic on behalf of the U.S. Department of State. (26) Cardinal Parolin never responded, but the news that is coming out in recent days seems to clarify these aspects too. The freedom of movement given to McCarrick was also known, (27) and he himself wrote in 2012: “I was in Doha last week and go to Ireland… and following that… I begin one of my longest trips – Beirut, Jordan, Egypt, Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia and Hong Kong… before I start again in the Holy Land and Belarus.” (28) And in 2014: “I leave for China on Thursday the 27th… I am sure that [Secretary of State] Cardinal Parolin would see me since he is involved with my China trip.” (29)

Among other things, the cooperation of the Society of Jesus in the diplomatic moves of the Vatican with the dictatorship of Beijing – beginning with the special Chinese edition of Civiltà Cattolica – confirms the willingness of the Holy See to give an endorsement to China, just as suspicions materialize about its responsibility for the spread of the Covid virus in order to destabilize the international geo-political balance. The role of Antonio Spadaro and other Jesuits – all frequent visitors to Villanova University – is emblematic and demonstrates the red thread that links doctrinal progressivism to moral perversion and political corruption. On the other hand, these three elements – heresy, sodomy, and corruption – are so recurrent that they are almost a trademark of the deep state and of the deep church.

Speaking of the deep state, it is not surprising that the World Health Organization has made itself complicit in this operation of social engineering in order to please China, nor that President Trump has decided to withdraw the funding that has benefited it to date. What surprises and scandalizes is rather the complicit silence of the Vatican, faced with a sort of coup d’état that makes the Bergoglian church the spiritual arm of the World Government, under the aegis of communist tyranny and with the complicity of globalist parties. Italy, with its unelected government and the majority in a most serious political crisis, seems to be following the agenda and does not seem to want to review its positions towards Beijing: the constant threats of a return to the Covid emergency and to a lockdown are clearly instrumental in maintaining a power which in the presence of democratically convened elections would demonstrate its inconsistency. What is certain is that a slightly more incisive and less-aligned opposition to the mainstream narrative could be seen positively by both the electorate and the international partners of Italy.

Marco Tosatti: Let’s return to the question of the clergy scandals. On February 19, 2019, two days before the beginning of the summit presided over by Cardinal Cupich, an Open Letter was published by Cardinals Raymond Burke and Walter Brandmüller to the Presidents of the Bishops’ Conferences: “Before the drift in process, it seems that the difficulty is reduced to that of the abuse of minors…which is, however, only part of a much greater crisis…. Sexual abuse is blamed on clericalism. But the first and primary fault of the clergy does not rest in the abuse of power but in having gone away from the truth of the Gospel… In the face of this situation, Cardinals and Bishops are silent. Will you also be silent?… Today, [our] dubia have not only not had any response [from the Holy Father] but are part of a more general crisis of the Faith. Therefore, we encourage you to raise your voice to safeguard and proclaim the integrity of the doctrine of the Church.” (30) What result came from this appeal of the eminent Prelates? 

Abp. C.M. Viganò: Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller, like other Prelates, have done nothing but laudably reaffirm Catholic doctrine: the unheard of thing is that they are the ones who are considered “strange” in the ecclesial structure, while a voice is given to those personalities who for their acquaintances, their endorsements of the LGBT agenda, and in some cases even for the shadows that hang over their conduct ought to be removed from the Church and severely censured.

In April 2019, Benedict XVI published a strong intervention in Klerusblatt, which was then reprinted in Italy by Corriere della Sera (31) and was fiercely censored by Marco Politi at Il Fatto Quotidiano. (32) This article was in reality intended for the summit in Rome through the Secretariat of State, but it was boycotted, confirming the intervention of the “lavender mafia” to impede the Holy Father from making his position on the subject known to the Bishops.

Marco Tosatti: Can you remind us of what this intervention of Benedict XVI consisted of?

Abp. Viganò: The focal point of the article of Ratzinger that infuriated the supporters of Bergoglio was precisely that it pointed out the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia and also between the relaxing of morality following the Council and the spreading of the plague of abuse.

Obstinately closing his eyes in the face of the evidence, the progressive Marco Politi wrote: “What does the abandonment by the Church of an ethic based on natural law have to do with pedophilia? What do changes in Catholic moral theology have to do with it, what do gay cliques in seminaries have to do with it, what do porn films have to do with it, what does the relativization of values and moral judgment have to do with it?” (33) And yet it is evident that where the formation of candidates for the priesthood and religious life cancel discipline and the interior life, vices and sins multiply that degenerate even into the most grave crimes against minors, and not only that.

The cause of this change resides precisely in the “spirit of the Council,” which Benedict XVI wanted only to mention but which did not fail to be immediately grasped by those who saw the superdogma that was being questioned: “Truly grotesque [sic] is the attempt by the ex-pontiff to attach to the “conciliar” spirit the position of extreme guarantism of ecclesiastical processes, aimed at the protection of the accused to the bitter end “to the point of practically excluding the condemnation of the guilty,” the essay says. Thus would it be the fault of the advocates of the Council, said more plainly the fault of the reformers, if the network of cover-up artists and pettifoggers, which in any case tried and still tries to impede the trial and condemnation of clerical predators, was revealed to have always been so overbearing and powerful?” (34)

Marco Tosatti: Do you think that Marco Politi is right?

Abp. Viganò: I believe that the answer to this rhetorical question of the vaticanist Politi can be indisputably affirmative: there is a very strict relationship between the doctrinal crisis of the Church and the immorality of the clergy, that scandalously reaches up to the highest levels of the hierarchy. But it is also apparent that this crisis is being used by the ultra-progressive wing not only to impose a false morality together with a false doctrine, but also to irremediably discredit the Holy Church and the Papacy before the faithful and the world, through the action of its own leaders.

Marco Tosatti: Don’t you think that in the end the Report that everyone is waiting for will be published? 

Abp. Viganò: If it is possible to shed light on this affair, this will happen despite the Vatican: the interests at stake are enormous and directly affect the very top of the Church, and not only for questions of a doctrinal, moral, or canonical nature, but also for political and diplomatic aspects that have seen the Holy See become the object of a coup d’état with the complicity of those who should have defended it in its sovereignty and independence. What did not succeed during the pontificate of Benedict XVI was brought to fruition after his resignation. How can we hope that the one who is indebted for his own election to McCarrick – who was one of the main proponents of the secret agreement with China – will be able to clarify a series of events that involve him personally, demonstrating the connivances with the Chinese dictatorship against Catholics faithful to the Holy See and perhaps also the responsibility of that regime for the resignation of Pope Benedict? How can we imagine that the murky events of Saint Gallen will become clear, when it was there that the conspirators organized the election of Bergoglio? And how can we believe that the Church will purify herself of the corruption and vice of her clerics and prelates, when they are the ones who have taken power and who are promoted to the highest levels in a web of complicity between heretics, perverts, and traitors?

The one who ought to investigate the scandals is heavily involved in the appointment, promotion, and protection of those who are guilty: Bergoglio has surrounded himself with compromised and thus blackmailed personalities, whom he has no qualms about getting rid of as soon as they risk compromising him in his media image.

Let’s not forget that the legitimization of homosexuality is part of the agenda of the New World Order – to which the Bergoglian church adheres openly and unconditionally – not only for its destabilizing value in the social body, but also because sodomy is the principal instrument with which the Enemy intends to destroy the Catholic priesthood, corrupting the souls of the Ministers of God.

For this reason, at least as far as what seems possible, the entire truth about McCarrick will never officially come to light.

Marco Tosatti: How can we respond to this corruption? 

Abp. Viganò: Today what cannot be deferred is a joint action of those who are good – those who in my Open Letter to President Trump I defined Biblically as “the sons of Light” – in order to bring to light the complicities and crimes of those who make war on the Good so as to establish the New World Order. In this operation of truth and transparency, the role of the United States may be decisive, above all when those who should and could contribute from the Vatican practice a code of silence. As the Lord said, “I tell you that if they keep silent, the very stones will cry out.” (35)

But there is a more important aspect, of a spiritual nature. We must understand that the ecclesial crisis was caused by having wanted to remove the crown from the Church’s King, Our Lord: He must return to reign not only in our hearts and families but also in civil society and most of all in the Church. Oportet illum regnare. And along with the King of Kings, Our Lady must also reign, the Queen and Mother of the Church, which has culpably disobeyed her by not consecrating Russia to Her Immaculate Heart. This is my most sincere wish, to which I ask all people of good will to unite themselves.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

22 July 2020

Saint Mary Magdalene 

Official translation by Giuseppe Pellegrino

________

1. https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/vortex-mccarrick-bombshell
2. http://www.vatican.va/resources/index_it.htm
3. https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2019-02/holy-see-mccarrick-dismissed-from-clerical-state-for-abuse.html
4. https://essayforthefaithful.com/
5. Crimes to which are added others that have recently been documented: cf. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/lawsuit-claims-ex-cardinal-theodore-mccarrick-headed-abusive-sex-ring-names-alleged-procurer-63583
6. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2019/february/documents/papa-francesco_20190221_incontro-protezioneminori-apertura.html
7. Cf. ad esempio https://www.ilpost.it/2019/02/25/incontro-abusi-sessuali-vaticano/
8. http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2018/august/documents/papa-francesco_20180826_irlanda-voloritorno.html
9. http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_card-cupich-protezioneminori_20190222_en.html
10. https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/it/2018/11/13/news/le-ragioni-del-rinvio-del-voto-sulle-norme-anti-abusi-negli-usa-1.34060080
11. https://youtu.be/b3iaBLqt8vg
12. https://international.la-croix.com/news/the-limits-of-a-pontificate-part-i/12170
13. http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_card-marx-protezioneminori_20190223_en.html
14. https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/tobin-tarmac-tweet-raises-eyebrows
15. https://www.today.com/video/how-cardinal-joseph-tobin-found-his-calling-in-the-catholic-church-1496688707952
16. http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2019/09/30/190930a.html
17. https://lanuovabq.it/it/e-paglia-ando-in-cielo-con-trans-e-gay
18. https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2020/06/07/news/vaticano_il_verbale_di_mos_carlino_pena_parra_mi_disse_come_procedere_su_torzi_-258667074/
19. https://espresso.repubblica.it/attualita/2018/10/12/news/le-condotte-immorali-del-nuovo-braccio-destro-del-papa-spunta-un-dossier-che-fa-tremare-il-vaticano-1.327763
20. https://www.marcotosatti.com/2019/08/01/accuse-di-vigano-a-pena-parra-conferme-da-maracaibo-vigano-accuses-pena-parra-confirmations-from-maracaibo/
21. http://magister.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2017/12/28/vaticano-senza-pace-soldi-sesso-e-presepe-lgbt/
22. http://www.korazym.org/44412/lo-strano-caso-del-presunto-abusatore-zanchetta-riapparso-e-il-processo-promesso-dal-papa-a-carico-del-suo-amico/
23. http://www.korazym.org/44391/saga-60sa-inchiesta-della-magistratura-vaticana-per-scandalo-finanziario-in-segreteria-di-stato-riflettore-sulle-normative-vaticane-vigenti/
24. https://www.christiantoday.com/article/china-tells-christians-renounce-faith-in-jesus-worship-president-xi-jinping/135221.htm
25. https://www.lanuovabq.it/it/hong-kong-la-santa-sede-si-inchina-al-regime-cinese; https://www.liberoquotidiano.it/news/italia/23616123/papa-francesco-socci-hong-kong-cina-angelus-passaggio-sparito.html
26. McCarrick, in his correspondence with his secretary Msgr. Figuereido, qualified himself as “an adjunct member of the foreign service.”; cf.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cardinal-theodore-edgar-mccarrick-vatican-restrictions-anthony-figueiredo-letters-report-2019-05-28/
27. According to Catholic News Agency: “In a 2009 visit to China, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi conveyed McCarrick’s greetings to Bishop Aloysius Jin of Shanghai, a priest who was a leading Chinese Jesuit, then spent decades in prison on charges of aiding counterrevolution before his release in 1982. He was ordained an auxiliary bishop without Vatican approval in 1985, though he received Vatican recognition in 2005. The bishop said he and Cardinal McCarrick had exchanged visits “beginning when the latter was Bishop of Newark (sic).” Pelosi said she would convey the bishop’s greetings back to Cardinals McCarrick and William Keeler, then an Archbishop emeritus of Baltimore».; Cf.https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/despite-mccarrick-abuse-claims-state-department-leaves-questions-unanswered-70448
28. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cardinal-theodore-edgar-mccarrick-vatican-restrictions-anthony-figueiredo-letters-report-2019-05-28/
29. Ibid.
30. https://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinals-burke-brandmueller-abuse-crisis-symptom-of-turning-away-from-trut
31. https://www.corriere.it/cronache/19_aprile_11/papa-ratzinger-chiesa-scandalo-abusi-sessuali-3847450a-5b9f-11e9-ba57-a3df5eacbd16.shtml; cf https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/04/10/full-text-of-benedict-xvi-the-church-and-the-scandal-of-sexual-abuse/
32. https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2019/04/12/pedofilia-qualcosa-non-torna-nel-contromanifesto-di-papa-ratzinger/5104990/
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. Lk 19: 39

---

  Blase Cupich, Carlo Maria Viganò, Clergy Sexual Abuse, Corruption, Coverup, Deep Church, Deep State, Doctrine, Homosexuality, Marco Tosatti, Morality, Pope Francis, Theodore Mccarrick, Vatican Corruption, Vatican Cover-Up

CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

Fire Unmasked Fauci who isn’t Social Distancing or End Banning of Masses!

July 24, 2020

Either fire Anthony Fauci for not wearing a mask and not social distancing or end the unconstitutional banning of Masses.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

JOHN-HENRY WESTEN

Renowned scholar debunks myths around Communion in the hand

Dr. Peter Kwasniewski shares the real history of the Church’s practice of receiving Communion in the handThu Jul 23, 2020 – 3:07 pm EST

July 23, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Today’s special episode of The John-Henry Westen Show is an interview I did last last week with Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, Thomistic theologian, liturgical scholar and choral composer who, aside from authoring books and essays for many of the most well-known Catholic websites in the world, also writes a column here at LifeSite.

Peter and I spoke for about 45 minutes as part of the “Love and reverence to Our Lord: Let’s always receive Holy Communion on the tongue” conference. The conference was organized by Voice of the Family and broadcast on LifeSite’s YouTube page. Click here to watch a recording of the entire conference for free.https://www.youtube.com/embed/nKZ-jCR5GOg

Our conversation was wide-ranging but focused primarily on the necessity of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, as this was the practice of the church for over a thousand years.