A ROWBOAT NAMED MAGA IS COMING FOR YOU IN THE NOVEMBER FLOOD THIS YEAR True success is always a work of the Holy Spirit within us. By: Bob Dervaes July 2, 2020 McIntosh Enterprises ripmcintosh@msn.com via auth.ccsend.co  I am forwarding this to a lot of people, but I already know my democrat friends will immediately get turned off and will probably not finish reading it. We are in a world of trouble, and if Trump is not re-elected in November, then for the first time in my life I will be glad I am in my twilight years. God please be with our children and grandchildren. This may be the best and most honest political promotion statement you will ever read.  It decidedly does not brush objections aside. You hate Biden? READ it. You hate Trump? READ it. You think there’s no choice? READ it. And, read it with your grown-up hat on. READ THIS. Read every single word. It’ll take you about three minutes. Be sure to read to the end. We’ve all been dealt a huge responsibility with this election. The first step toward accepting responsibility is accepting it, and the first step toward accepting it is recognizing it.   Are you sickened and despondent with the current campaign and upcoming presidential election? I consider myself a conservative and do truly believe our country is at a political/economic/moral/ social crossroads. I need to let you know I could/would never vote for Joe Biden to lead this country. To me, he represents everything that is wrong with our current political structure.  On the flip side, I look and listen to Donald Trump and I cringe at every rude, insulting comment he makes. If you find yourself in a similar state of mind, please read the following article: A Message For Christians About Donald Trump: Here’s a famous joke about God and how he talks to us.A deeply faithful Christian man is stuck on roof at home with massive flooding up to the 2nd floor. Rowboat comes. He says, “No, I’m waiting for God. I prayed and I know he’s coming.” 2nd Rowboat. “No, I’m waiting for God.” 3rd Rowboat. “No, I’m waiting for God.”Water rises. The man drowns. Now he’s meeting God in heaven. The religious man says, “Where were you God? I prayed. I was faithful. I asked you to save me. Why would you abandon me?” God says, “Hey, I sent you 3 rowboats.” Did you ever consider Trump is our rowboat? Maybe God is trying to tell us something important–that now is not the time for a “nice Christian guy” or a “gentleman” or a typical Republican powder puff. Maybe now is the time for a natural born killer, a ruthless fighter, a warrior. Because right about now we need a miracle, or America is finished. Maybe the rules of gentlemen don’t apply here. Maybe a gentleman and “all-around nice Christian” would lead us to slaughter. Or do you want another Mitt Romney, Bob Dole, John McCain, Gerald Ford or Paul Ryan? Did any of them win? Did they lead the GOP to “the promised land?” Did they change the direction of America? No, because if you don’t win, you have no say. Paul Ryan couldn’t even deliver his own state, Wisconsin!  Nice, but obedient. I mean Paul Ryan…not my dog. My dog is actually a pretty good defender and loyal. Maybe God is knocking on your door loudly, but you’re not listening. Maybe God understands we need a “war leader” at this moment in time.  Maybe God understands if we don’t win this election, America is dead. It’s over. The greatest nation in world history will be gone. Finished. Kaput. Adios. And with one last breath, maybe what we need to save us at the last second, is someone different. Someone you haven’t ever experienced before– because you weren’t raised in rough and tumble New York where nothing good gets accomplished unless you’re combative, aggressive, outrageous, on offense at all times, and maybe just a tad arrogant too. Someone with a personality you’ve never seen on stage at your church. Maybe, just maybe, being a nice gentlemanly Christian would not beat Biden and his billion dollars, and his best friends in the media who will unleash the dogs of hell upon the GOP nominee. I guess you think God is only nice and gentlemanly. Really? Then you’ve missed the whole point of the Bible. When necessary, God is pretty tough. When necessary, God strikes with pain, death and destruction. When necessary, God inflicts vengeance. Maybe you think God couldn’t possibly be associated with someone like Trump. Trump is too vicious, rude and crude. When we won WWII, was God “nice?” Were we gentlemanly when defeating Hitler? Were we gentlemanly when firebombing Germany? Were we gentlemanly when dropping atomic bombs on Japan ? Is God ever “nice” on the battlefield? Or does he send us vicious SOB’s like General George S. Patton so the good guys can defeat evil? It’s pretty clear to me God sends unique people to be “war leaders.” That’s a different role than a pastor or church leader. God understands that. And maybe it’s time to re-define “nice.” Maybe Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan aren’t nice at all–because they led us to defeat. And losing again would mean the end of America . And God can’t allow that. Maybe Romney and Ryan mean well, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Or maybe they’re just jealous they had their chance and blew it. Maybe they’d rather help elect Biden than allow a Trump victory that would make them look weak, feckless and incompetent. “Even the youths shall faint and be weary, And the young men shall utterly fall, But those who wait on the Lord shall renew their strength; They shall mount up with wings like eagles, They shall run and not be weary, They shall walk and not faint.” (Isiah 40:30-31) God is about miracles. We don’t need a “nice guy” or a “gentleman” right now. It’s the 4th quarter and we’re losing 14-0. We need a miracle. So let me repeat my message to Christians: “YOU’RE MISSING THE BOAT.” I believe Trump is our miracle. I believe Trump is our rowboat. Except he’s more like a battleship! No one is saying Trump is perfect. No one is saying Trump is a perfect conservative. But he is a patriot. He is a warrior. He is a capitalist. He is the right man, at the right time. Yes, he’s a bit rude and crude and offensive. But that may make him the perfect warrior to save America, American exceptionalism, capitalism and Judeo-Christian values. The choice should be easy for Christians. It’s Trump…or it’s the end of the American dream. {Published on Abyssum with the Imprimatur of Rene Henry Gracida}

---

 Black Lives Matter might be viewed as a grassroots movement of concerned people gathering together. 

It is much more.

Black Lives Matter is a corporation whose real name is Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation (BLMGNF).

(Yep…it’s one of those capitalistic corporations they profess to hate.) The following information is on their web site. 

It’s a nationwide corporation!  BLMGNF has chapters in: Boston, Chicago, Washington DC, Denver, Detroit, Los Angeles, Lansing, Long Beach, Memphis, Nashville, New York City, Philadelphia, South Bend and in Canada in Toronto, Vancouver and Waterloo. (If you were impressed by how all those recent riots erupted simultaneously from a grassroots movement…well…maybe not so grassroots.)

BLMGNF is a not-for-profit corporation but not tax exempt, so donations are not tax deductible.  Except…if you go to its website and want to donate, you are transferred to ActBlue Charities which will take your donation, give you a tax deduction, and then distribute your donation to BLMGNF.  Sort of…   

 Who is ActBlue?Taken directly from ActBlue’s web page, “Our (ActBlue) platform is available to Democratic candidates and committees, progressive organizations, and nonprofits that share our values for no cost besides a 3.95% processing fee on donations. And we operate as a conduit, which means donations made through ActBlue to a campaign or organization are considered individual donations”.

ActBlue consists of three parts: ActBlue Charities facilitates donations to left-of-center 501(c)(3) nonprofits; Act Blue Civics is its 501(c)(4) affiliate; ActBlue is a 527 Political Action Committee. 

These three have raised over $5 billion dollars in the sixteen years since it started.  If its 3.95% transaction fee has been applied to all donations, that equates to over $197 million.So, ActBlue is a Democratic Party front affiliated with BLMGNF. 

If only it was that simple and stopped there. Per Business Insider Australia, “ActBlue…distributes the money raised to Thousand Currents, which is then granted to Black Lives Matter”.What is Thousand Currents (Formerly International Development Exchange)?Again, per Business insider Australia, “Thousand Currents is a 501(3)(c) non-profit that provides grants to organizations that are…developing alternative economic models…”.  (Is anarchy now an alternative economic model?)“

Thousand Currents essentially acts as a quasi-manager for Black Lives Matter: ‘It provides administrative and back office support, including finance, accounting, grants management, insurance, human resources, legal and compliance,’ (Executive Director Solome) Lemma said”.  (Finance, insurance, human resources, legal and compliance?  It sounds like General Motors!)

What’s the significance of the above?Black Lives Matter is not some fly-by-night fad that is going to loot and destroy and then disappear into the ash heap of history.  It’s a multi corporation, big business which is heavily associated with and supports the Democratic Party and it is here to stay.  

Arguing whether Black Lives or All Lives Matter is meaningless and distracts us from what it is trying to achieve.  It is a left-wing political movement that will have a significant impact on the Democratic Party programs for the foreseeable future. 

Socialism and Communism are intimately linked to these efforts while the US Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights have no place in their plans.  Patrisse Cullors, one of Black Lives Matter’s co-founders is widely reported as saying, “We are trained Marxists”.

The president of Greater New York Black Lives Matter said that if the movement fails to achieve meaningful change during nationwide protests, it will “burn down this system.”  Not the peaceful change we celebrate under our Constitution but violent change.  For those of us who like our Constitution, this is a challenge thrown in our face.If you have wondered why politicians have danced around criticizing Black Lives Matter, now you know.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CATHOLIC MONITOR

SEARCH

Bishop Gracida: “HOW IS ANY SERIOUS CATHOLIC NOT ANGERED BY THE SILENCE OF THE U.S. BISHOPS ABOUT Joe Biden?”

July 21, 2020Bishop Rene Gracida on his website states:

“HOW IS ANY SERIOUS CATHOLIC NOT ANGERED BY THE SILENCE OF THE U.S. BISHOPS ABOUT Joe Biden?”

HOW IS ANY SERIOUS CATHOLIC NOT ANGERED BY THE SILENCE OF THE U.S. BISHOPS ABOUT Joe Biden?

THE US BISHOPS AND JOE BIDEN: SCANDAL UPON CATHOLIC SCANDAL! MY FELLOW CATHOLICS, DO NOT SIN LIKEWISE!     How is any serious Catholic not angered by the silence of the US Bishops about Joe Biden? He carries a rosary with him (as a prop?) and calls himself “devout with a deep sense of faith?” Let’s count the ways Biden blatantly defies his Catholicism.      Joe Biden supports murdering babies up till the day of birth. He supports the murder of the elderly, disabled, and medically vulnerable through euthanasia and assisted suicide. He supports any number of sexual perversions and immoral experimentations that attack Catholic marriage and family. He himself has even presided over a same sex marriage in direct opposition to Church mandate. His environmental policies are built on the population control principles of abortion and contraception.

 And, he has supported legislation and made statements that many have considered racist. He even admitted that as President he would force (bully) Catholic nuns to pay for contraception and abortion in spite of the fact that the SCOTUS sided with the conscience and religious freedom of the nuns 7-2. He is a walking and talking scandal to his Catholic faith and has rightly been refused the Eucharist because he persists in ongoing mortal sin thus separating himself from communion with the Church. He scandalizes the Catholic Faith in so many ways that objectively he actually seems “anti Catholic” in his beliefs. But the BIGGER SCANDAL is that the US BISHOPS do not forthrightly proclaim what I have just laid out; what every Catholic knows yet half choose to ignore because the bishops have ignored it and remain silent about it.

The silence of the US BISHOPS about Joe Biden is even a greater scandal than Biden’s idolatry (by which he places his intrinsically evil political agenda before his Catholicism) because he does so because of the tacit approval from our shepherds. I encourage every Catholic to read #2284-2287 on scandal in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and to contact their bishops. Denounce Biden’s scandal of Catholic defiance and the bishops’ scandal of silence. I am also begging Catholics to not go down the same road as Biden and the bishops by supporting this man with their vote. Thus we would be heaping more scandal upon more scandal upon scandal. https://religionnews.com/2020/07/17/bidens-bid-touts-faith-courts-even-religious-conservatives/

 On Jul 17, 2020, at 7:44 PM, Leo Padget <lpadget2014@outlook.com> 

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

“When you seek heaven first, you will get earth into the bargain; that is what Jesus promises. When you seek earth first, you lose both.” —Prof. Anthony Esolen De-throning Vatican IIThe Council’s time in history has passed By Anthony Esolen     The doctrine of infallibility is, to my understanding, modest and protective: it declares that the Church will never, in matters of faith and morals, preach what is false. It does not declare that the Church will be free of folly or wickedness.      Cardinal Reginald Pole, whose native England had severed herself from Rome, said at the Council of Trent that the divisions in the Church were God’s punishment for the corruption of her princes. (1)What the sins were for which the aftermath of Vatican II was the punishment, I cannot tell, unless they were the simmering acts of treachery and apostasy that characterized some of the principals at the Council, and many priests, religious, and laymen around the world in the years that followed.     About the Council documents I will have little to say here. The choice for a “hermeneutic of continuity,” which Archbishop Vigano suggests has failed, seems to me to be an absolute necessity by any conceivable understanding of what the Church is, what truth is, and what genuine “development of doctrine” is, as set forth most precisely by St. John Henry Newman.      A hermeneutic of rupture — the notion that at Vatican II the Holy Spirit cut the Church clean from her past, to establish a new thing — is a flat contradiction of the promises of Christ. It denies the Church’s essence as a body maintaining her identity through all the chances and changes of the world, and, in her moral and spiritual growth, always remaining the same Church, coming to deeper understanding of truths already held. Marriage does not develop by divorce. If the documents of Vatican II can be brought into harmony with what the Church has always taught, then they must be, regardless of the intentions of the attending prelates and theologians.     Here we come to a crux, one of three that I will look at here. The first involves the distinction between the Church and a political body.    Thomas Aquinas says that judges and magistrates who execute the law must be guided by the mind of the lawgiver, rather than construing the law to negate what the lawgiver intended to do. That is because, in any political system, each officer has his proper function which he should not overstep. It is also because law is general and universal, not specific and particular; no lawgiver can anticipate every eventuality. Therefore we require the astute obedience of the judge or magistrate, who does not take the law into his own hands, but, in deference to the mind of the lawgiver, applies the law justly to the matter before him.    In a severely limited sense, we may say something similar about how responsible Churchmen should have implemented certain directives laid out in the Council documents: for example, the directive in Sacrosanctum concilium to bring to the faithful the Church’s immense musical wealth, and to confirm the pipe organ as the instrument most fit for the worship of God. Such identity-conserving directives were ignored. Instead, people appealed to the “spirit of Vatican II” — what I have called “the Ghost of Vatican Past” — to justify innovations that were often at odds with what the documents themselves say.     But the spirit of Vatican II is a fiction. Not even in the political sphere may a judge appeal to the spirit of a senate debate; he has the law before him, and the law, not excitations in the senate chamber or conversations in a cloak room, not what this or that lawgiver wanted and did not get, not hearsay, not fervid reports from priests writing under a pseudonym, not some supposed farther advance of the law, must express for him what the lawgivers intended.

But the lawgiver here is the Holy Spirit and not men, and that makes all the difference in the world.     We are not permitted to guess at the mind of the Holy Spirit, as if He were chief among the political actors at the Council. The Council cannot claim to speak for the Holy Spirit, simpliciter. Again, we believe that the Holy Spirit will guard the Church against preaching error.     We do not believe that the Holy Spirit speaks positively through every Pope or Council Father as through a pasteboard mask. Indeed, those revolutionaries among the Fathers at Vatican II can have believed no such thing, or else there never would have been a Vatican II to begin with; Vatican I would have had to suffice.     No, when we interpret any papal pronouncement or any Council document proclaiming a matter of faith or morals, we must assume that the Holy Spirit cannot change, cannot contradict himself.     The words then are our concern. Unlike the words of a human lawgiver, they deal with the eternal.     The first crux implies a second. The great movers of Vatican II regarded the Council as a new foundation for the Church. We may call this “the Modernist Gambit.” You scoff at the past as benighted, outworn, even stupid and wicked, but certainly determined by time and place, and therefore to be discarded now that we have a new time and place.     That is nonsense, even in secular arts and letters; who says that Bach is benighted or that Shakespeare is outworn?     But almost in the same breath, the Modernist, having cut himself adrift from the ages, declares that he alone is not determined by time and place; he or the direction he travels in is absolute, inevitable, unquestionable. The Modernist sacrifices man, says Gabriel Marcel, to the Minotaur that is “history.” We are floating on a raft downriver to a 1,000-foot waterfall, but if that is where the river is going, we should flow with it too, for the river is History, or what we fancy to be History, and that fiction has become our god.     That brings me to my third and final crux. The Council Fathers wanted to address the Church to the modern world. It was a pastoral Council, not a dogmatic Council — so we have heard.     Here I note that when you seek heaven first, you will get earth into the bargain; that is what Jesus promises. When you seek earth first, you lose both.      The innovators at the Council thought in modern political terms, and therefore, unless they were devils intending to destroy, they were inept even at the task they had set for themselves. Pastorally, the Council was a calamitous failure: vocations to the priesthood and religious life dried up; schools shut down; colleges shut down or apostatized; Catholic arts and letters, that had given the world several Nobel laureates in literature, collapsed; great music was abandoned for the stupid and treacly; and Catholics capitulated to the Lonely Revolution around them, that abandonment of the Christian sexual ethic that had shed its sweet light upon the lives of ordinary Christians, and had trained them up in virtue and sanctity. The modern world was already a dead thing, deadening all it touched.      Modernism subtracts, minimalizes, obliterates. Should the Church bind herself to a corpse? If ever there was a time to be buried in forgetfulness, it was that late modern age, so rich in things and poor in soul.     We say, with embarrassment, that the Spanish Inquisition was not as bad as people think, and that it should be understood in the context of its time and culture.      So also Vatican II: it should be understood in the context of the time — and the time has passed. It did not affirm error. Its implementers did little good and much mischief. Enough already.     The sooner we forget it, the sooner we bid it leave the throne it never deserved, the sooner we cast off its dated liturgical innovations — as dated as Godspell and the Singing Nun — the better.      (1) Cardinal Reginald Pole lived from 1500 to 1558 and was the last Catholic archbishop of Canterbury under Queen Mary’s brief Catholic restoration, from July 1553 to her death in November of 1558. Mary was the only child of King Henry VIII by his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, to survive to adulthood. Her attempt to restore to the Catholic Church the property confiscated in the previous two reigns was largely thwarted by Parliament, but during her five-year reign, Mary had over 280 religious dissenters burned at the stake, which led to her denunciation as “Bloody Mary” by her Protestant opponents. Cardinal Pole died about 12 hours after Queen Mary herself on November 17, 1558.***     About the author: Professor Esolen graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University in 1981. He pursued graduate work at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he earned his M.A. in 1981 and a Ph.D. in Renaissance literature in 1987. Esolen’s dissertation, “A Rhetoric of Spenserian Irony,” was directed by Prof. S. K. Heninger. Esolen taught at Furman University and Providence College before transferring to the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts in 2017 and, in 2019, to Magdalen College of the Liberal Arts in southern New Hamsphire, USA, where he is Writer-in-Residence. Esolen has translated into English Dante’s Divine Comedy, Lucretius’ On the Nature of Things, and Torquato Tasso’s Jerusalem Delivered.    If you would like to get to know Dr. Esolen better, you might begin by viewing him being interviewed by Doug Keck of EWTN on Esolen’s translation of Dante’s Divine Comedy at this link.    Again, Esolen’s essay will appear in the upcoming print issue of Inside the Vatican magazine. To subscribe, click here.

For those of you out there who may not know….

MEET WARREN WILHELM JR,

Born with a silver spoon in his mouth, parents had to leave federal jobs because they were communist.  He left college to go to Nicaragua in the 80’s and greatly admired the Soviet backed Socialist Sandinista.

He returned to America and joined the Nicaragua Solidarity Movement of New York whose goal was to end capitalism and replace it with Democratic Socialism.

When married in 94 he honeymooned in Cuba.

Said he is very proud of his Marxist work and has worked for both of the Clinton’s campaigns.

In 2001 he changed his name to Bill DeBlasio

Pass this around… far and wide.  This is the kind of ilk we’re dealing with and the source of the problems we find ourselves in.

The Sorrow of St. Nathaniel

I was in adoration, and St. Nathaniel came.  He looked a bit disheveled and smelled of the sea.  It drifted through the chapel.  And it made me homesick for the ocean.  The ocean is the place where I hear most clearly.  I told him that I wish I could go to where he had spent time fishing, and walk with him there and talk to him.  I asked him if that could happen, and he said, “If God wills.”  He has a cute, lop-sided grin, but tonight his smile was strained, and there was sorrow in his eyes.  As a mother, I wanted to just put my arms around him . His eyes are immensely kind, and I could tell he wished to give me consolation, but he had a message for a world that has transgressed the laws of the Lord, and that was what he had to deliver.  This is what he said:

“Words that have been spoken and long ago gathered fall back on the earth like burning rain,

For Rachel has cried for her children and has been inconsolable for they were not.

But now Rachel cries and is consoled, 

As more and more of her children are sacrificed on the altar of the world.

And those that holy men were warned not to offend are offended on a daily basis,

And the chains that hold the millstones to the offenders’ necks are cut away and cast into the sea

While the offenders remain unmoved.

And the banner of the Church is substituted for a banner of unrepentant hearts.

Oh who will save you now, you generation of transgressors?  

For you have turned from the hand of mercy offered to you,

And have reached instead for the one who sheds scales and who has no hand to offer.

The words that have been spoken now pour forth upon the world as a burning rain.

Did you not believe the warnings that you were given?

For Rachel’s cries have reached to heaven, 

And the sound of the cutting of the chains holding the millstones

Has grated on the ears of the angels.

Oh you arise from your beds and go forth, 

Impervious to the calamity that hovers over your heads.

Oh what fools men are when full of their own pride

For they will be brought low, even to the ground.

I stood by the water when a storm was coming, and our Lord spoke to me as He wept for His people.

His sorrow was great, but His mercy long-suffering.

But men have exhausted His mercy and have brought upon themselves justice,

And so it comes to pass.

The words that have been spoken fall upon the earth as a burning rain,

And few will there be who are left untouched.”

-S

To these members I would say: If freedom isn’t worth the risk, quit the Congress. Someone with more courage will replace you in a special election. The emotion driving the proposal for remote voting is an expression of a kind of cowardice I would never have expected to see in America.

Congress Must Reject Cowardice BY: Newt GingrichJuly 17, 2020 Below is the opening statement I made today to a House Committee hearing on the question of remote voting in Congress. This is an important issue, and I wanted to make sure as many Americans were aware of it as possible.Thanks,Newt   Statement by Former Speaker of the US House of Representatives Newt GingrichCommittee on House AdministrationJuly 17, 2020Remote Voting Thank you for allowing me to testify even if virtually. I am still in Rome, where my wife Callista is the Ambassador to the Vatican, and I appreciate the opportunity to participate. We have all learned through the virus-driven period of isolation and quarantine that there are many electronic systems for distance communication, including FaceTime, Zoom, GotoMeeting, Skype, and a host of competitors. Some major universities and schools have learned to use distance learning with great effectiveness. I have always favored the use of distance communicationsfor learning. That is why I think it is appropriate to gather information with distance witnesses for committee hearings. However, the question of remote voting in a legislative body raises a different issue that is separate from convenience of technological capability. Legislative bodies have a long and profound history in the emergence of freedom and self-government. Whether they were in Greek city states or in the Senate of the Roman Republic, the existence of legislative bodies were a powerful invention to involve citizens in their own government and to enable elected officials to work together in understanding and solving problems. There are two key factors in the very nature of legislative bodies which require them to get together physically to truly function at the highest level they are capable. First, there is the collective learning curve of people working together over time. Second there is the collective power of a legislature when its members have reached a decision they are determined to implement even when faced by opposition from the executive branch. First, people who get in a room and argue, think, and learn together achieve much greater depth of knowledge than people who are isolated. In the great historic periods of legislative assertiveness, it was mutual knowledge and the sense of mutual collaboration which enabled elected officials to find better solutions than they would have found on their own. In a well-functioning legislative body, the whole is much greater than the sum of the individual members. It is this synergistic effect by which people from different regions, professions, ideologies, and personal experiences blend into a mutually improving system. A sound legislative process works when an individual develops an idea. It starts to get put into legislative language. Someone else brings a different specialty or expertise, and the idea is improved dramatically. Then, a third person brings a unique regional or interest group perspective and points out the modifications needed to make the idea really work. It is precisely this system of improvement and maturation – moving from conception, to introduction of legislation, to an amending process at subcommittee, committee, and the floor – that helps legislation meet the needs of the people. When a bill gets through one body (House or Senate), then the other body follows a similar process. Finally, the House and Senate come together to hammer out a final version which will go to the President.This process requires human interaction and mutual learning at every step of the way. It is the process which ultimately leads to the best product. This kind of process requires humans in the same room to really share knowledge and grow intellectually. The Founding Fathers had virtually all served in colonial legislative bodies. They understood the process of winning and losing elections. They understood the process of legislating together in groups. In fact, the Founding Fathers felt so strongly about the importance of legislatures that in the US Constitution, Article I provides that all legislative power be vested in a Congress consisting of a House and Senate. Section two is the House, and Section three is the Senate.Only after clearly defining and writing at length about the duties and powers of the legislative branch did the Founding Fathers get around to writing about the President and the Executive Branch. The Federalist Papers, the great exposition of the Constitution by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay makes clear (by repetition and inference) that an elected legislature meeting regularly is central to protecting the liberty of the people. The Founding Fathers, in addition to their knowledge of Greek and Roman history and their study of various governments in the middle ages, were steeped in English history. They felt deeply that the Magna Carta, tying the King’s ability to get money to the permission of the people was the bedrock from which all other legislative power grew. They had studied the erosion of the Parliament’s power under King James I, and its resurgence under King Charles I – which led to the Civil War largely as a result of parliamentary opposition to the King. The Founding Fathers had a particular fear of Oliver Cromwell and the imposition of a dictator who would break outside the agreed charter of self-government. They were determined that the legislative branch would be close enough to the people that it could draw its strength against any effort at despotism by the Executive Branch. It is this need to get to know each other well enough to have long conversations – and to grow together in the face of threats to our freedom – that led the Founding Fathers to place so much faith in a freely-elected legislative body with two branches. Given this history, there are three severe consequences of shifting toward remote voting: First, the amount of power centered on the Speaker will create a virtual legislative dictatorship. There have been moments of strong Speakers in our history. In each case, when they grew too strong, the legislative body as a group confronted them and forced change (the joint progressive Republican-Democrat coalition that broke Speaker Joseph Cannon’s power in 1910 is the classic example). If every member of Congress is back at home, the Speaker and his or her staff will have virtually unlimited ability to shape the legislation they want, make the deals with the Senate and the President they want, and become virtually unchallengeable. The defense of freedom which the Founding Fathers had made the most important mission of the legislative branch would be destroyed by this single development. A dictatorial Speaker is potentially just as destructive and dangerous as a dictatorial President. This challenge is not personality-dependent, and it is not particularly aimed at the current Speaker. Lord John Acton warned us over a century ago that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” We are not any more immune to that process of corruption than any other people or any other generation. If you leave most of the House members at home, those who do come to Washington will acquire vastly more power and have vastly increased temptation to use their power corruptly. Second, the individual members will lack the mentorship and the collegiality which has grown so many legislators over the last 244 years. The legislative process is a continuing apprenticeship and educational experience. Legislating, the act of voluntarily getting free people from many different backgrounds and regions to work together, is one of the most complex things human beings do. It takes years to learn to be an effective legislator. Ask any third- or fourth-term member how much more he or she understands about the legislative process than when he or she first arrived. Ask how much of that learning came from hanging out and listening to colleagues. I was very honored to go through what might be called “the school of legislating” for over a decade before I joined the Republican leadership. Without that kind of personal relationship and camaraderie, I seriously doubt if I could have learned enough to develop the Contract with America, passed major reforms like welfare reform, or achieved a balanced budget. A House that votes remotely will remain remote to itself. Its members will have deeply stunted growth in vital skills and no access to invaluable knowledge. Third, legislation will become a lot more inadequate – and in some cases, just plain dumb – as the traditional process of working together and sharing information and different perspectives changes into a more distant, irregular, and inevitably disrupted process. The US Congress would become a detached collection of echo chambers – and America would be hurt by it. Please let me add one final word about the whole underlying reason for considering remote voting. Our national anthem says we are “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Our Founding Fathers risked their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to defend freedom. The Civil War generation lost 630,000 Americans fighting for the Union and to end slavery. The Greatest Generation went across the planet risking its lives to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. By the way, through all these events, Congress met in person. Now, we are told that our members of the House are too precious to risk their lives by coming to Washington. To these members I would say: If freedom isn’t worth the risk, quit the Congress. Someone with more courage will replace you in a special election. The emotion driving the proposal for remote voting is an expression of a kind of cowardice I would never have expected to see in America. We are asking children and teachers to go back to school, but House members can’t come to Washington. We are asking truckers to crisscross the country bringing us food and supplies, but their representatives have to hide in fear and vote electronically to avoid risk. We have young men and women risking their lives all across the planet to protect freedom, but their elected leaders can’t risk being in a room with immediate access to doctors and remarkably little risk of anything bad happening. I am embarrassed for this House that such a proposal could even get to a hearing. I hope you will table it and move on to issues more worthy of the United States House of Representatives.

A scientific look at the mask fallacy – and why we’re told to wear them

By Daniel Bobinski – July 15, 2020

 Share

By Daniel Bobinski

Imagine a large grizzly bear is terrorizing your neighborhood. You have a powerful bear gun and potent bear spray that will make the bear go away or allow you to eliminate it if it attacks you. But your government tells you not to use those tools. Instead, they insist you camouflage yourself, hunker down, and hope the bear doesn’t get you.

That about sums up Covid-19 in America. We have powerful methods for getting rid of the virus if one gets a bad infection, but instead we’re told to wear masks and stay six feet apart. Oh, and no large gatherings, either – unless you’re protesting.

Let me first briefly discuss reliable tools for getting rid of a Covid infection, and then we’ll examine the efficacy of masks.

Tools for fighting a Covid infection

It is unfathomable to me the number of people who believe fear-mongering politicians and their media cohorts who convey the idea that catching Covid is a death sentence.

To quote Dr. Vladimir Zelenko of New York:

“COVID is very real. But if we treat it early and the right way, it’s nothing to fear. I saw early use of zinc, hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin result in an over 99% survival rate in my COVID patients. Don’t let professional scaremongers dictate the narrative.”

The treatment Zelenko is talking about has become known as The Zelenko Protocol, which leads to a 100% survival rate in low-risk patients and a 99.3% survival rate in high-risk patients. What’s a high-risk patient? Zelenko says anyone age 60+ with symptoms and those under 60 with comorbidities or shortness of breath.

The protocol’s success comes from treating on clinical suspicion, which means not waiting for test results. If a high-risk person presents with symptoms, start the protocol right away so the infection doesn’t have time to get a strong foothold.

And what is the protocol? It’s a low-cost (usually $20) prescription.

• Hydroxychloroquine 200mg 2x/daily for 5 days
• Zinc sulfate 220mg 1x/daily for 5 days
• Azithromycin 500mg 1x/daily for 5 days

Another tool gaining attention is using a nebulizer for inhaling the corticosteroid Budesonide. Normally used for treating asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Budesonide inhaled through a nebulizer combined with zinc has produced a 100% Covid recovery rate for patients of Dr. Richard Bartlett of Midland, Texas. At least one hospital has cleared its ICU of Covid patients by using Bartlett’s protocol.

Bartlett wrote that he chose Budesonide over other corticosteroids because “it appears to block most of the cytokine storm inflammatory chemicals that Covid-19 triggers.” He also says, “100% of [his] patients appear to be symptom-free following a course of inhaled Budesonide therapy.” Bartlett has published a Case Study Report for people to review.

The Mask Fiasco

While many doctors across the country are using these protocols successfully, other doctors – and even some states – are refusing to shoot the bear. They just want us to use camouflage – to mask up and hope the virus doesn’t get us.

In ping pong-like fashion, we’ve heard conflicting stories on masks. We have video of Anthony Fauci telling us that masks are useless for preventing viral spread, and then we have video of Fauci telling us facial coverings will prevent the spread.

We have the World Health Organization telling us not to wear masks unless we’re sick or caring for someone who is, and then we have them telling us the public should wear masks.

A little digging revealed a likely reason for this change of advice: Neither the CDC nor the W.H.O. suggest any Covid outpatient treatments. In other words, these agencies have zerosuggested treatments for Covid UNTIL an infected person lands in the hospital.

With this, one can understand why they started recommending masks. These organizations will make big bucks once vaccines come out, so it makes no sense for them to promote the Zelenko Protocol or Bartlett’s Nebulizer Protocol. Yet because these treatments have been successful against Covid, the powers that be had to do something.

Follow the money

If you’ll recall, back in March the coronavirus task force told us everyone would be exposed to the virus, but by closing non-essential businesses and staying home for two weeks, we would flatten the curve and not overwhelm our healthcare systems. Of course, we now know that was a bait and switch.

Here’s my translation of the 40,000-foot view:

1. Big pharma and other organizations will make big bank on vaccines, so any competing treatment must be pooh-poohed.
2. The CDC, W.H.O. and big pharma don’t have an outpatient treatment recommendation, but they still need to look like they’re doing something, so they changed their story on mask efficacy.
3. By making masks mandatory, multiple psychological effects are engaged, such as (a) people believe non-mask wearers are spreading the infection and (b) if we’d all just obey the government, everything would get better.
4. Which leads to, “Hurry, government – bring us a vaccine so we can go back to normal.” (see # 1)

Facts on mask efficacy

Until recently, the overwhelming percentage of doctors recommended against masks for anyone who wasn’t sick or caring for someone who was.

Consider that on May 21 of this year, the highly respected New England Journal of Medicine stated, “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.”

Consider the report by trauma & emergency physician Dr. Kelly Victory, who said, “[T]here’s no scientific justification for normal healthy people to be wearing masks.”

Okay, those are statements. What about studies?

As I dug for scientific articles both in favor of and against the wearing of masks (I really do strive to understand both sides of an issue), I came across a thorough meta-analysis of extant studies on mask efficacy. The work was conducted by Denis G. Rancourt, Ph.D, and by reading his paper, “Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to Covid-19 Social Policy,” you will save yourself hours of boring library research.

In an interview Rancourt did with Del Bigtree on The Highwire YouTube channel, Rancourt gave an overview of his research, saying:

“If you use only proper studies – randomized, controlled trials with verified outcomes – they all unambiguously say that there is no statistical evidence of a benefit in terms of reducing risk of getting a viral respiratory disease. They all say it.”

Rancourt also says the current narrative about wearing masks to prevent spreading Covid is simply “a river of talk, it’s a river of posturing, it’s a river of policy statements.” He says you can’t just ask people in a study if they had the sniffles last week. You have to determine if people really got sick.

“[I]f you look at those [studies],” Rancourt says, “and there have been many of them over the last decade, none of them show a statistically significant advantage to wearing a mask compared to not wearing a mask.”

For those who want to dig deeper, Rancourt’s article contains links to each randomized, controlled trial on mask efficacy, and it’s a recommended read.

Are there detriments to wearing masks? 

Absolutely. Lower oxygen levels is one result. A 2006 study showed that reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) and/or an elevation in blood C02 (hypercapnia) can create painful headaches for people required to wear masks all day. It should also be noted that people with asthma or hypotension are at a greater risk of stroke, cardiac arrest, or an irregular heartbeat when suffering from hypoxia.

Consider what Jennifer Cabrera, Editor of a Florida newspaper did. She says, “I sent a pulse oximeter to work with a 23-year-old man who works in an open kitchen over a grill.” Here were the readings throughout the day:

• Before shift: 99% O2
• After 3.5 hours of wearing a mask: 93% O2
• After 7 hours of wearing a mask (feeling dizzy): 88% O2

There’s also psychological trauma that can be triggered by mandatory masks. People who have been robbed at gunpoint by masked individuals are reporting traumatic reactions to masks, and women who have been sexually assaulted are reporting the same.

States and health care systems are creating their own crisis

The point to remember is all the properly conducted studies – randomized, controlled trials with verified outcomes – all say there is no statistical evidence of a benefit in terms of reducing risk of getting a viral respiratory disease.

But also remember the story about the bear. When weapons are available to fend off the bear but people are either ignorant about them or told not to use them, people die unnecessarily.

Health care workers wear masks around Covid patients all the time, and yet health care workers get infected. Tragically, some states have banned doctors from prescribing the Zelenko Protocol, and worse yet, some doctors don’t even know it exists. This is a travesty, because even health care workers are dying unnecessarily.

It makes zero sense to hide behind a mask when tools for fending off the bear are readily available – but aren’t being used.

Daniel Bobinski, M.Ed. is a certified behavioral analyst, best-selling author, columnist, corporate trainer, and keynote speaker. He’s also a veteran and a self-described Christian Libertarian who believes in the principles of free market capitalism – while standing firmly against crony capitalism.

The New Book of Daniel Podcast
Twitter: @newbookofdaniel
Parler: @newbookofdaniel
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/newbookofdaniel/
© Shadowtrail Media, LLC

Enjoying our content? Appreciate a daily dose of Actual Journalism^TM?
Please consider becoming an UncoverDC supporter via PayPal.

• TAGS
• Budesonide
• CDC
• Covid-19
• Daniel Bobinski
• Denis G. Rancourt
• Dr. Kelley Victory
• Dr. Richard Bartlett
• Dr. Vladimir Zelenko
• Hydroxychloroquine
• Masks
• Nebulizer
• UncoverDC
• W.H.O.

Daniel Bobinski

A CANADIAN’S VIEW OF PRESIDENT TRUMP Ernie Meggisen, a Canadian, wrote the following on Donald J. Trump… Make no mistake…I’m not posting this for debate.  I don’t want your commentary.  ..Unfollow or unfriend me if it makes you feel better. Just consider this…  When you think  that your  President Trump is a jerk; HE IS… He’s a New Yorker..  He’s crude and can be downright rude.  Some say he’s a thin-skinned, arrogant, bombastic ass.  ..No argument, even from most republicans if they’re really honest. He gets his feelings hurt and he’s a hot head. ..He hits back; harder. …And he probably should Tweet less. But let me tell you what else he is…And if you disagree with this that’s your privilege.  ..But in that case my friend, you’d be DEAD WRONG!!!  ..And here’s why; He’s a guy who DEMANDS performance. ..And more  importantly; RESULTS!!  He spent his entire life in the private sector where you either produce or get your ass fired! He’s a guy who asks lots of questions. ..And t he questions he asks aren’t cloaked in fancy “political” phrases; they are “Why the hell…?” questions. For decades the health industry has thrown away billions of face masks after one use. ..Trump asks, “Why are we throwing them away?  Why not sterilize them and use them numerous times?” (Good question.) He’s the guy who gets hospital ships readied in one week when it would have taken a bureaucrat weeks or months or never to get it done. He’s the guy who gets temporary hospitals built in three days. He’s the guy who gets auto industries to restructure to build ventilators in a business that’s highly regulated by agencies that move like sloths. He’s the guy who asks “Why aren’t we using drugs that might work on people who are dying; what the hell do we have to lose?” (Another good question.) He’s the guy who restricted travel from China when the democrats and liberal media were screaming “xenophobia” and “racist.”  ..Now they’re wanting to know why he didn’t react sooner?  When he shut down the borders in the early days of the corona virus, the democrats screamed even LOUDER.  ..Then the rest of the world, including the European Union quickly restricted travel between their own member countries. He’s the guy who campaigned on securing the border – protecting America – in the face of screaming democrats and the liberal media. …And these SAME leaders of your democrat party (both the Clintons, Chucky Schumer, Harry Reed, Barack Obama, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi et al…)  ALL were in FAVOR of constructing the wall ‘UNTIL’ Trump had the fortitude to actually do it!!! Now your comeback might be:  ‘Oh, he said Mexico was going to pay for it’.. Does that ring a bell?  Well let me quickly set you straight on this one: Have you compared the old EXTREMELY one-sided NAFTA agreement (negotiated by none other than Jimmy ‘peanuts’ Carter) with the NEW U.S.M.C. agreement? Well I have…And let me tell you this:  Mexico will now end up paying much MORE for your goods than you will for theirs…And why you might ask?? Because they’re far more  reliant  on the U.S. than you are of them.  Yes, it will take time but the bottom line is;…They WILL end up paying for the wall just like Trump said all along!  .Admittedly as a Canadian, this new USMCA is certainly not as beneficial as NAFTA was for both my country and Mexico.  Previously our farmers had a huge monopoly over your farmers but ‘fair is fair’… Has Trump made mistakes? ..Of course.  You can’t fault a person for being a human being.  Only ONE perfect man walk this earth 2000 years ago, Jesus! Everyone I know has made mistakes and continues to make them and LEARNS from them. Trump is, and has accomplished more than any U.S. President in my lifetime. (I’m 77 years old)  ..He puts in 18 to 20 hour days. He isn’t hiding in his office; he’s out front – Briefing – ALL Americans almost everyday. According to democrats and liberal media, when he offers hope he’s lying, and when he’s straight forward he should be hopeful. It’s a no-win situation for him every day with the haters and naysayers, but he is NOT deterred. I’ll take THIS kind of leadership 6 days a week and TWICE on Sunday over a “polished, nice guy” politician who has seldom or never held a real private sector job in his or her adult life, reads prepared and “written by a speech-writer” speeches from a teleprompter and ONLY answers pre-scripted questions selected for him/her prior to the open forum.  (Sorry folks, but that’s EXACTLY what your previous POTUS did.) I am completely mystified as to why this man has been bombarded by the media and liberal electorate EVERY day since back in 2015 when he announced his run for the U.S. presidency. …And whether you want to believe it or not, Americans, let me tell you one more thing, if you REALLY think that Hillary would have accomplished even a fraction of the things for the betterment of the American public that POTUS Trump has, you’ve really got your head in the sand. I can only wish he was MY President! – For the good of America, you’d better hope he’s re-elected this November. I DO

THE US BISHOPS AND JOE BIDEN: SCANDAL UPON CATHOLIC SCANDAL! MY FELLOW CATHOLICS, DO NOT SIN LIKEWISE!     How is any serious Catholic not angered by the silence of the US Bishops about Joe Biden? He carries a rosary with him (as a prop?) and calls himself “devout with a deep sense of faith?” Let’s count the ways Biden blatantly defies his Catholicism.      Joe Biden supports murdering babies up till the day of birth. He supports the murder of the elderly, disabled, and medically vulnerable through euthanasia and assisted suicide. He supports any number of sexual perversions and immoral experimentations that attack Catholic marriage and family. He himself has even presided over a same sex marriage in direct opposition to Church mandate. His environmental policies are built on the population control principles of abortion and contraception. And, he has supported legislation and made statements that many have considered racist. He even admitted that as President he would force (bully) Catholic nuns to pay for contraception and abortion in spite of the fact that the SCOTUS sided with the conscience and religious freedom of the nuns 7-2. He is a walking and talking scandal to his Catholic faith and has rightly been refused the Eucharist because he persists in ongoing mortal sin thus separating himself from communion with the Church. He scandalizes the Catholic Faith in so many ways that objectively he actually seems “anti Catholic” in his beliefs. But the BIGGER SCANDAL is that the US BISHOPS do not forthrightly proclaim what I have just laid out; what every Catholic knows yet half choose to ignore because the bishops have ignored it and remain silent about it. The silence of the US BISHOPS about Joe Biden is even a greater scandal than Biden’s idolatry (by which he places his intrinsically evil political agenda before his Catholicism) because he does so because of the tacit approval from our shepherds. I encourage every Catholic to read #2284-2287 on scandal in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and to contact their bishops. Denounce Biden’s scandal of Catholic defiance and the bishops’ scandal of silence. I am also begging Catholics to not go down the same road as Biden and the bishops by supporting this man with their vote. Thus we would be heaping more scandal upon more scandal upon scandal. https://religionnews.com/2020/07/17/bidens-bid-touts-faith-courts-even-religious-conservatives/

On Jul 17, 2020, at 7:44 PM, Leo Padget <lpadget2014@outlook.com>