Since the rollout of the experimental COVID shots, U.S. health officials have adamantly claimed the shots are safe for pregnant women and their unborn babies
Meanwhile, now-released Pfizer court-ordered, released data — which the Food and Drug Administration wanted to hide for 75 years — reveal the miscarriage rate among women whose pregnancy outcomes were known was 87.5%. The true rate may be higher or lower, as Pfizer did not record or report pregnancy outcomes for 238 of the 274 women known to be pregnant during the trial
A CDC-sponsored study that was widely used to support the claim that the shot is safe during pregnancy misreported the data. The actual miscarriage rate in that paper was 82%
As of August 12, 2022, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting (VAERS) database listed 4,941 miscarriages post-COVID jab. For comparison, the fetal death reports for all other vaccines reported to VAERS in the last 30 years is 2,239
Israeli research found the Pfizer COVID jab impairs male fertility for three months after each dose, dropping sperm concentration by 15.4% and total motile count by 22.1%, compared to baseline
Since the rollout of the experimental COVID shots, U.S. health officials have adamantly claimed the shots are safe for pregnant women, and have been urging all pregnant women to get the jab “to protect themselves and their babies.” To this day, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends the COVID shot for:1
“… people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant now, or might become pregnant in the future.”
The CDC further recommends:2
“People who are pregnant should stay up to date with their COVID-19 vaccines, including getting a COVID-19 booster when it’s time to get one.”
And claims:3
“Evidence continues to build showing that:
COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is safe and effective.
There is currently no evidence that any vaccines, including COVID-19vaccines, cause fertility problems in women or men.”
All the while, they’ve had Pfizer data showing the shots cause shocking rates of miscarriage which, adding insult to injury, have been blatantly miscategorized as a “recovered/resolved” adverse effect.4 Who in their right mind would consider DEATH a resolved side effect unless they had a depopulation agenda in mind all along?
I don’t see how this could be described as anything but a criminal cover-up. The only reason we know any of this is because U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman ordered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to release Pfizer documents at a rate of 55,000 pages per month. The FDA and Pfizer had asked to release the documents at a pace of 500 pages per month, which meant it would take 75 years to disclose them all.5
Criminal Cover-Up
Dr. Naomi Wolf recently reported that an analysis of Pfizer data revealed 44% of the women in the trial suffered miscarriages.6 That statistic turns out to have been the result of a miscalculation,7 as Pfizer listed the miscarriages in two separate columns, resulting in them being counted twice.
We’ve repeatedly found Pfizer’s data collection and reporting to be all over the place, and seemingly on purpose, to make hazards more difficult to ascertain. Wolf admitted the error and took down the original report. However, while fact checkers are gloating over the perceived victory, there’s plenty of other evidence in the Pfizer material to demonstrate these shots should be banned for all time.
In an August 20, 2022, Substack article, Dr. Pierre Kory addressed other, “absolutely horrifying,” findings on miscarriages found in the Pfizer data dumps:8
“… let’s do a dive on just one page of the many thousands. See below, Section 5.3.6, Page 12 of the document called ‘Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports.’
Looking at the first bullet under the header: Pregnancy cases: 274 cases including:
In this paragraph, at first read, it is just a list of adverse events and numbers, detailed in a way that is confusing at best, and obfuscating at worst. I think it is the latter because, if you do some simple arithmetic trying to parse that paragraph, you end up with this:
270 pregnancies were reported in vaccinated women during the first 12 weeks of the vaccine campaign. In 238 of them, ‘no outcome was provided.’ So, they only knew the outcome of 32 pregnancies reported. What happened in those 32 pregnancies they followed up on?
My hands are literally trembling as I write this, but here goes. In these 32 pregnancies, there were:
• 23 spontaneous abortions
• 2 spontaneous abortions with intra-uterine death
◦So, 25 of the 32 pregnancies with known outcomes resulted in a miscarriage, a rate of 78%. Note that miscarriage normally occurs in only 12-15% of pregnancies
• 2 premature births with neonatal death
• 1 spontaneous abortion with neonatal death
• 1 normal outcome
Note that this only adds up to 29 known outcomes, but then they note that ‘two different outcomes were reported for each twin’ and then they talk about ‘fetus/baby cases as separate from mother cases.’ I have no idea how to interpret this explanation of outcomes, so it may have been one or two less (or more) deaths then.
So, of the 32 pregnancies they knew the outcome of, 87.5% resulted in the death of the fetus or neonate. Burying this data in the way and not alerting the world to what they found, is criminal activity …”
To be perfectly clear, the failure to record and report the outcomes of 238 out of 274 pregnancies during a drug trial is simply unheard of. It’s shockingly unethical. And the fact that both the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC accepted this, and claim there’s “no evidence” of harm to pregnant women and their babies is proof positive of reprehensible maleficence.
There’s no fixing what’s gone wrong at the FDA and CDC. Their credibility with the public is ruined beyond any possible recovery. The CDC can review and reorganize itself all it wants, but it changes nothing. They are, to this day, urging pregnant women to take a shot that they KNOW will cause babies to die. Calling it a dystopia of epic proportions is a profoundly serious understatement.
CDC-Sponsored Study Also Tried to Hide Data
Need more evidence? How about the fact that the CDC-sponsored study9 published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in April 2021 — which was widely used to support the U.S. recommendation for pregnant women to get injected — also obfuscated data to hide a shockingly elevated miscarriage rate.
According to this paper, the miscarriage rate within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy was 12.5%, which is only slightly above the normal average of 10%. (Looking at statistical data, the risk of miscarriage drops from an overall, average risk rate of 21.3% for the duration of the pregnancy as a whole, to just 5% between Weeks 6 and 7, all the way down to 1% between Weeks 14 and 20.10)
However, there’s a distinct problem with this calculation, as highlighted by Drs. Ira Bernstein, Sanja Jovanovic and Deann McLeod, HBSc, of Toronto. In a May 28, 2021, letter to the editor, they pointed out that:11
“In table 4, the authors report a rate of spontaneous abortions <20 weeks (SA) of 12.5% (104 abortions/827 completed pregnancies). However, this rate should be based on the number of women who were at risk of an SA due to vaccine receipt and should exclude the 700 women who were vaccinated in their third-trimester (104/127 = 82%).”
In other words, when you exclude women who got the shot in their third trimester (since the third trimester is after week 20 and therefore should not be counted when determining miscarriage rate among those injected before week 20), the miscarriage rate is 82%. (The errors in that NEJM article were also reviewed in a Science, Public Health Policy and the Law paper12 published in November 2021.)
Of those 104 miscarriages, 96 of them occurred before 13 weeks of gestation, which strongly suggests that getting a COVID shot during the first trimester is an absolute recipe for disaster. So, here was yet another attempt to hide the fact that more than 8 in 10 pregnancies may be terminated as a result of the jab.
As of August 12, 2022, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting (VAERS) database listed 4,941 miscarriages post-COVID jab.13 For comparison, the fetal death reports for all other vaccines reported to VAERS in the last 30 years is 2,239.14
Birth Rates Are Suddenly Plummeting Worldwide
In addition to miscarriages, we’re also looking at abruptly plummeting birth rates, suggesting the COVID jabs are having an adverse impact on future fertility as well.
“They are large drops, and they are occurring, almost like clockwork, approximately 9 months after pregnant women around the world started to be vaccinated,” Kory notes.15
For example, Germany recently released data showing a 10% decline in birth rate during the first quarter of 2022.16
The live birth rate graph for Sweden looks much the same, with a 14% drop:17,18 According to Gunnar Anderson, a Swedish professor in demographics at Stockholm University, “We have never seen anything like this before, that the bottom just falls out in just one quarter.”19
Between January and April 2022, Switzerland’s birth rate was 15% lower than expected, the U.K.’s was down by 10% and Taiwan’s was down 23%.20,21,22 In Hungary, MP Dúró Dóra has expressed concern about a 20% drop in birth rate during January 2022, compared to January 2021.23
The U.S. is also showing signs of a drop in live births. Provisional data from North Dakota show a 10% decline in February 2022, 13% reduction in March and an 11% reduction in April, compared to the corresponding months in 2021.24
In the five countries with the highest COVID jab uptake, fertility has dropped by an average of 15.2%, whereas the five countries with the lowest COVID jab uptake have seen an average reduction of just 4.66%.
In a July 5, 2022, Counter Signal article, Mike Campbell reported that in the five countries with the highest COVID jab uptake, fertility has dropped by an average of 15.2%, whereas the five countries with the lowest COVID jab uptake have seen an average reduction of just 4.66%. Below is a chart from Birth Gauge25 on Twitter comparing live birth data for 2021 and 2022 in a large number of countries.
Many Women Report Menstrual Irregularities Post-Jab
High rates of menstrual irregularities post-jab are also a warning sign that reproductive capacity may be impacted. As of August 12, 2022, there were 31,443 VAERS reports of menstrual disorders.26
Changes include heavier and more painful periods27 and changes in menses length, as well as unexpected breakthrough bleeding or spotting among women on long-acting contraception or those who are postmenopausal and haven’t had a period in years or even decades.28
Health officials have tried to brush off the reports, but a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology — funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Research on Women’s Health — confirmed an association between menstrual cycle length and COVID-19 shots.29
According to the authors, it’s possible that the immune response created by the mRNA shots affect the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis, which plays a well-known role in the timing of a woman’s cycle:30
“Our findings for individuals who received two doses in a single cycle supports this hypothesis. Given the dosing schedule of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the United States (21 days for Pfizer and 28 days for Moderna), an individual receiving two doses in a single cycle would have received the first dose in the early follicular phase.
Cycle length variability results from events leading to the recruitment and maturation of the dominant follicle during the follicular phase …”
Other Disturbing Evidence
A Japanese biodistribution study for Pfizer’s jab also showed the COVID spike protein from the shots accumulate in female ovaries and male testes,31,32 and there’s credible concern that the COVID jabs will cross-react with syncytin (a retroviral envelope protein) and reproductive genes in sperm, ova and placenta in ways that may impair fertility and reproductive outcomes.
A Pfizer-BioNTech rat study33 revealed the injection more than doubled the incidence of preimplantation loss (i.e., the risk of infertility), and led to mouth/jaw malformations, gastroschisis (a birth defect of the abdominal wall) and abnormalities in the right-sided aortic arch and cervical vertebrae.34,35 As noted by The Exposé:
“With this being the case, how on earth have medicine regulators around the world managed to state in their official guidance that ‘Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy’? And how have they managed to state ‘It is unknown whether the Pfizer vaccine has an impact on fertility’?
The truth of the matter is that they actively chose to cover it up. We know this thanks to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request36 made to the Australian Government Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).”
You can read more about that in The Exposé’s July 19, 2022, article, “FOIA Reveals Pfizer & Medicine Regulators Hid Dangers of COVID Vaccination During Pregnancy After Study Found It Increases Risk of Birth Defects & Infertility.”37
We’re also seeing a sudden uptick in infant mortality. The Exposé38 highlighted data from Scotland, showing neonatal deaths were 119% higher above the annual norm in March 2022.
Male fertility is also under attack by these bioweapons. Israeli research39,40 published in the journal Andrology found the Pfizer COVID jab temporarily but significantly impairs male fertility, dropping sperm concentration by 15.4% and total motile count by 22.1%, compared to baseline pre-jab.
Both eventually recovered, some three months after the last jab, but if you destroy a man’s sperm for three months every time he gets a COVID shot, you’re significantly reducing the probability of him fathering a child for a good part of any given year and the stats reviewed above support this.
Remember, the mRNA shots are recommended at three-month intervals for the original series, and boosters are now being recommended at varying intervals thereafter. In the video above, Amy Kelly, project director for the Daily Clout’s Pfizer document analysis team, reviews this study and other post-jab male fertility concerns.41
End the COVID Shots Now, Before It’s Too Late to Recover
In October 2021, when the FDA was voting on whether to authorize the COVID jab for children aged 5 through 11, Dr. Eric Rubin, an FDA advisory panel member, Harvard professor and editor-in-chief of the NEJM, stated:42
“We’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it. That’s just the way it goes … And I do think we should vote to approve it.”
So, in this and other instances, they’ve openly admitted that anyone who takes the jab is part of an experiment. Yet at the same time, the FDA and CDC have insisted that the jabs are perfectly safe — all while in possession of data showing they’re anything but! In conclusion, I agree with Kory, who writes:43
“… when a new medicine or device is introduced, you must first assume any adverse effects or deaths reported to be related to the intervention until proven otherwise. That is what I am doing here.
We must assume the vaccines are impacting fertility unless some other provable or credible explanations for a sudden drop in month to month birth rates. So stop the shots until you can prove they are not …
Too many young people dying,44 too many becoming disabled, too many pregnancies resulting in fetal or neonatal death as above, and now we find out that if we continue with this vaccine obsession, they will not be replaced. This is a humanitarian catastrophe heaped atop the one caused by dangerous gain-of-function research.
When will the world wake up to this rapidly unfolding horror? For those of us who know what is going on, it is hard not to feel helpless as we are forced to watch increasingly apparent and widespread needless death. But we will continue to try to get these truths out despite the massive censorship and propaganda overwhelming the globe.
We have a moral and ethical obligation and take that responsibility seriously no matter what befalls us. Stop the vaccines, now. And if we can’t stop them, we must try to convince everyone we know to no longer agree to get vaccinated. Their lives and our future depend on it.”
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Since the rollout of the experimental COVID shots, U.S. health officials have adamantly claimed the shots are safe for pregnant women and their unborn babiesMeanwhile, now-released Pfizer court-ordered, released data — which the Food and Drug Administration wanted to hide for 75 years — reveal the miscarriage rate among women whose pregnancy outcomes were known was 87.5%. The true rate may be higher or lower, as Pfizer did not record or report pregnancy outcomes for 238 of the 274 women known to be pregnant during the trial
While Americans around the country cheered when they heard the news of Dr. Fauci’s impending retirement, Rand Paul got serious.
Well, in truth, he’s been serious about Dr. Fauci for quite some time.
But now he wants to make sure Dr. Fauci and all Americans know that Fauci’s retirement changes nothing.
Senator Rand Paul intends to still hold Fauci fully accountable for all the damage he’s done to the nation.
Dr. Anthony Fauci’s retirement will not stop a “full-throated investigation”
Dr. Anthony Fauci’s retirement will not stop a “full-throated investigation” into the origins of the Chinese coronavirus.
That was the very clear warning from Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) following the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) announcing the end of his high-profile tenure effective this December.
Fauci, who also serves as the chief of the NIAID Laboratory of Immunoregulation and as chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden, recently announced that he will leave his roles in government service in December “to pursue the next chapter of my career.”
Fauci, 81, had originally suggested he would not leave his post until the end of Biden’s first term in office.
Fauci wants to walk away without being held accountable
But his announcement moves up his retirement significantly to right after the Midterm elections, most likely with an eye to Republicans taking control of both the House and Senate.
Most observers believe Fauci is of the belief walking away will allow him to leave without being held accountable for all the damage he’s done to the country and for the lies he’s told to Congress.
But Senator Rand Paul warned Fauci in no uncertain terms that an early retirement will not stop Republicans in the House and Senate – if the GOP manages to retake the majority – from putting the spotlight on Fauci during their expected investigation of the origins of the coronavirus.
“Fauci’s resignation will not prevent a full-throated investigation into the origins of the pandemic. He will be asked to testify under oath regarding any discussions he participated in concerning the lab leak,” Paul said.
Paul is a longtime critic of Fauci and has warned that a GOP majority in the House could lead to such an investigation into the origins of the virus.
And this is a topic Paul has repeatedly warred with Fauci over.
Paul had a tense exchange with Fauci in November 2021 over Fauci essentially changing the definition of gain-of-function research to better suit his purposes.
“We’re aware that you deleted gain-of-function to the NIH website,” Paul said during the exchange, “as it is clear that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) did, in fact, fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab.”
Since that time Fauci has been caught in a number of lies, both to the American people, and in front of Congress.
Let’s hope he is held accountable for that as well.
US Political Daily will keep you up-to-date on any developments to this ongoing story.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Doctor Fauci may think he can just ride off into the sunset without paying for all the damage he’s done, but he is mistaken.
Mazza: Supreme Legislator “Pope might be above Canon Law … but… [Francis] Bergoglio… hardly has the power to bend [‘God’s Eternal Law’] the Nature of Ontological Reality “
The scholar Dr. Ed Mazza in a guest post on the Ann Barnhardt website wrote the “pope might be above canon law (I’ve heard it both ways)—but he is certainly not above natural law”:
In the case of Pope Benedict, the stakes couldn’t be higher. If his notion of the munus Petrinum was erroneous, then his resignation was invalid. Canon 188 of the New Code of Canon Law (1983) states explicitly that “a resignation made out of…substantial error” is invalid. This would mean Benedict is still the Head of the Catholic Church and that Jorge Bergoglio is “Antipope Francis.”
Furthermore, it must be noted that for years-on-end critics of those who hold that Benedict is pope have accused them (among other things) of “not being trained canon lawyers.” Others have argued that Canon 188 does not matter anyway because the Pope as Supreme Legislator is “above canon law.” Still other prominent critics argue that because all the cardinals and 99% of the bishops of the Church have “peacefully accepted” Francis as pope, Benedict’s resignation AUTOMATICALLY MUST HAVE BEEN VALID.
The plain facts of the matter are these. If the mind presents an erroneous idea to the will and the will acts on it, that act is invalid by the very fabric of realty itself—not because canon law says so. And it doesn’t take a canon lawyer to determine the erroneous nature of the idea of the person when said person has been obliging enough to make official speeches and book-length interviews for eight years. The pope might be above canon law (I’ve heard it both ways)—but he is certainly not above natural law, which is man’s participation in God’s Eternal Law, under which heading substantial error falls. Lastly, the silent acquiescence of the shepherds of the Conciliar Church to Bergoglio’s abysmal regime hardly has the power to bend the nature of ontological reality either. [https://www.barnhardt.biz/2021/03/12/dr-mazza-guest-post-its-nothing-business-its-strictly-personal/]
The respected Fr. Brian Harrison appears to agree with Dr. Mazza:
On January 13, 2013, the Canon Law Made Easy website in a article titled “Can a Pope Ever Resign?” said in speaking of a canon 332.2 phrase on a pope’s resignation having to be “properly manifested” said:
On the other hand, the respected Fr. Brian Harrison in speaking on is the pope above canon law thought the statement “the pope is “above canon law” is a half-truth” according to a post on the Catholic Answers website:
The article “White Smoke, Valid Pope” by Fr. Brian Harrison (March 2001) makes an interesting but flawed argument against the sedevacantists’ claims about Rome. Fr. Harrison argues from canon law regulations on heresy and excommunication in order to show that a pope who incurs latae sententiae excommunication would be a valid but illicit pope. He writes, “While this [heretical] pope would offend God gravely by exercising his office while under an (undeclared) excommunication, all his official acts still would be juridicially valid.”
These arguments that place the pope under the rule of canon law are futile. A closer scrutiny of the situation would reveal that the pope answers only to God: The pope is the author of canon law, which depends solely on his will. Excommunication is a disciplinary decision of the Church, and thus the qualifications that automatically incur excommunication-such as advising someone to have an abortion-are subject to change.
Fr. Harrison writes, “A pope who began his pontificate as an orthodox Catholic but became a formal heretic or apostate during his pontificate would thereby legally incur excommunication.” That statement is an impossibility. The pope is above canon law and is not subject to excommunication.
Thank you for all the good your organization has done. Your magazine is the most interesting and informative Catholic publication I have encountered.
Mara Mirus Nokesville, Virginia
Fr. Harrison replies: To say that the pope is “above canon law” is a half-truth. It is true in the sense that the pope has no superior on earth who could declare, enforce, or remove any penalty against him for breaches of the law. But it is false insofar as it means that he could never incur, in God’s sight, any such penalty or that he has no moral duty to act and govern the Church according to the law that he himself officially recognizes as valid at any given moment in his pontificate.
Canon law includes numerous prescriptions of divine law that no pope can ever overturn (see for example cc. 330, 925, 849, 864, and 1024 in the 1983 Code). Even the “merely” ecclesiastical law contained in the Code is for the universal Church, and the pope is morally obliged to be the first in giving a good example by living and acting as a law-abiding Christian. Of course, as supreme legislator, the pope may change any ecclesiastical law by officially and expressly abrogating it or derogating from it. But if he were to decree something which broke the law-that is, which acted against an existing ecclesiastical law without expressly adding a clause derogating from that law-then canon law itself (c. 38, 1983 Code; c. 46, 1917 Code) states that such a lawless action, even on the part of a “competent authority” (and that, of course, includes the pope) would have “no effect.” [https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-the-pope-above-canon-law]
Last year, Steven O’Reilly debated a Catholic Monitor commenter on if Benedict is Pope and also discussed the issue of “is the pope above canon law” as well as other matters:
In Their Heartsapparently is learned in the Latin language and I am hoping he might debate Latinist Br. Alexis Bugnolo in the future on their disputes over the best translation of the Pope Benedict XVI resignation text. The Monitor reader is also well versed in theology as is O’Reilly who has excellent debating skills.
Is Benedict pope?
Who won the debate?
I leave it up to the Catholic Monitor readers to decide. Enjoy this well fought debate:
Concerning Benedict’s resignation let’s set the record straight:
1. We are not at the time of the antichrist! Why? Precisely because with the Consecration and conversion of Russia, the world will experience “an era of peace,” promised by Our Lady at Fatima.
2. Revelations and prophecies in Sacred Scripture are NOT always given chronologically, at least in a clear fashion. All one has to do is read the Commentary of St. Thomas on 2 Thess. 2. There St. Thomas divides the two events mentioned by St. Paul, the Mystery of Iniquity, i.e., the “revolt” or as it is sometimes translated the “falling away,” and the coming of the antichrist, the man of sin, the son of perdition with a space of time between them–most likely the period of peace promised by Our Lady.
3. Benedict chooses his words very carefully, but HE DID NOT choose the future tense to say that “the See WILL be vacant.” He used the subjunctive which has specific uses but basically it represents not a fact but an idea. It was not a mistake, nor was he hiding anything; he was testing the Cardinals for their knowledge of Latin! Although I give a technical explanation with the translation in my Treatise what Benedict ultimately says is that “a conclave is needing to be called PROVIDED the see is vacant. No one has shown where this is wrong–they can’t because I very carefully document what I say. Hence IN NO WAY can it be said that Benedict was splitting the Petrine Office from the Roman See, PRECISELY AND ESPECIALLY SINCE HE WAS DETERMINED TO REMAIN IN THE VATICAN!!!
4. Benedict publicly stated that his renunciation was made freely and was valid. For any attempt to say that he made an error one HAS AN OBLIGATION TO SHOW EITHER THAT BENEDICT WAS STUPID OR THAT HE INTENDED TO LIE; or as the rage in some quarters has it, Benedict intentionally “pulled the wool over the eyes” of those dressed in sheep’s clothing. But this must be proved as well!!!
5. Benedict demonstrated that it is the Pope, to whom St. Paul was referring, who was holding back the mystery of iniquity which was active from the time of St. Paul, so when Benedict “stepped aside,” he did so “that he may be revealed in his time.” Benedict was in a way “taken out of the way,” but he did it in a way that preserved the Indefectibility of the Church, by remaining the true Pope whereby the enemy of the Church was only a figurehead,” or if you will is an anti-Pope.” The Church had been filled with apostates to the extent that NO POPE could expose of get rid of them, not even if he were regarded as a most saintly Pope. They had to be allowed to expose themselves.
Points 1 and 2: They don’t appear relevant to anything I’ve said re BiP. If I am missing something on that score, please clarify.
Point 3: I am not a Latinist in any sense of the word. But, I would make three points. First, another BiP theorist, Br. Bugnolo, has a translation that differs from yours–as I understand it. I tend to use his in my responses to various BiP theories, since that is the general reading BiPers seems to accept (at least the “standard theory” of BiP).
In making my second point, I’d stress again I am not a latinist is any sense of the word. That said, common sense suggests to me your translation is off. That is, if you must go to the lengths of writing an explanation in a treatise to demonstrate your translation; that very fact in itself seems almost a proof your rendering must NOT be — at a minimum — the plain, obvious reading of the text.
Third, it doesn’t make sense for BXVI to go through the trouble of the Declaratio, and saying a conclave should be called only “provided” that the See is empty. Of course it was going to be vacant as Feb 28, 2013, 20:00 hours, Rome time…that was the ultimate point of the document. All of his actions demonstrate he intended the reality of the matter, e.g., see Normas Nonnnullas. I refer you to my replies to Dr. Mazza’s thesis on the question of the Declaratio, Normas Nonnullas, the last audience, and Ganswein.
Regarding Point 4…I think we’re in agreement on that. I’ve made that point as well. If one says BXVI did not resign freely, one must defend calling BXVI a liar. But, I’d add, one must call him a liar as well if one says he did not resign, e.g., he calls himself a “former pope” in a letter to Cardinal Brandmuller.
Regarding Point 5…I disagree with your thesis as outlined. I’ve argued on my blog (www.RomaLocutaEst.com) — see the “Summa Contra BiP” — that BXVI fully renounced the papacy. He retains nothing of the office or ministry. Therefore, all BiP theories are erroneous. To suggest he still has some authority…or full authority, etc; but still allowed Bergoglio to be among us is to call BXVI worse than a liar. It would be monstrous if this were part of some complicated ploy on BXVI’s part. I must reject your thesis.
As to your theory being unique; it seems there are as many as 4-6 unique BiP theories. But, Socci seems to believe he kinda resigned and kinda didn’t. No? Dr. Mazza believes BXVI successfully resigned part of the papacy, e.g., the “bishop of Rome” part.
A quick follow up on setting conditions on the resignation. I’ve heard it before, and recently read it again…but I forget where at the moment…that St. Pius XII had submitted some sort of pre-resignation that would be effective if he were ever taken from Rome by the Germans during WWII. Again, I might be mistaken, but I believe I had heard that JPII also had some sort of resignation that would be effective should he be incapacitated. Hearing this, it wouldn’t surprise me if more of the modern popes at least had had such a document.
As to one canonist’s opinion, while certainly of interest, I am sure others would differ — and I would suspect the consensus would be against him. Certainly, it seems to me at least to be a matter of common sense that a ‘resignation if condition applies’ document would be of benefit to the Church.
Regarding your comments on my five point comment above you reply: “Points 1 and 2: They don’t appear relevant to anything I’ve said re BiP. If I am missing something on that score, please clarify.” Although you may consider those first two points dealing with the nature and circumstances surrounding Benedict’s resignation, you indeed did not include them in your BiP arguments, but that was the precise reason why I was addressing these two points to you. Perhaps you don’t consider that events, circumstances, conditions in the Church among many other matters as important, I don’t know. However, I do consider them important and that they ought to be brought into any consideration on what is going on in the Church today.
Regarding your comment on not knowing Latin, one ought to know some Latin in treating of such a momentous act as Benedict’s renunciation. That being said I must disagree with Br. Alexis’ translation: “so that on February 28, 2013, at 20:00 Roman Time [Sedes Romae], the see of Saint Peter be vacant.” This translation in no way reflects the Subjunctive; on the contrary it is a very clever way to use the Present Future Indicative, which states a fact as opposed to stating an idea, a possibility, etc. which the Subjunctive does–in which case the translation should have been “may be vacant”. The reason Brother uses provides an Indicative translation is so that he can say that Benedict made a mistake and hence the resignation is invalid. I’m sorry, but I cannot agree either that Benedict made a mistake or that he was intentionally trying to say the wrong thing, which would indeed be lying; it certainly wouldn’t be a so-called mental reservation since that sentence as Brother translates it can only be understood in ONE WAY. Secondly, Benedict uses “ita ut”, not “ut” alone, which according to the Latin dictionaries means “in such a way,” to such an extent,” “on condition that,” “only insofar as.”
As for going to lengths to explain the translation I gave to that long sentence by Benedict where he declares his intention to resign from the “ministry” is because most people don’t know Latin and I felt that every possible use of that construction ought to be set out. Furthermore, it is in no way a refutation as such of my translation in saying that it is so lengthy.
Concerning the comment “Third, it doesn’t make sense for BXVI to go through the trouble of the Declaratio, and saying a conclave should be called only “provided” that the See is empty. Of course it was going to be vacant as Feb 28, 2013, 20:00 hours, Rome time…that was the ultimate point of the document.” it must be stressed that given the word Benedict used here, namely “ministry,” he DID NOT RESIGN FROM THE OFFICE. In the history of Canon Law, until Vatican Council II, the only words used to refer to the Petrine Office were “Papatus” and “Munus.” And even Br. Alexis shows that there is a difference in meaning between “Munus” and “ministerium.” Hence, since Benedict is NOT resigning from the Petrine Office he could use a time limit, precisely because, as I mentioned in an earlier comment, it is not legitimate to use time limits and conditions in “Juridical acts” concerning such important matters as the Papal Office or Marriage.
In the whole of your Summa Contra the BiP Theory there is an implicit denial of a basic Philosophical principle: “Actio sequitur esse” (Action follows being). The FACT that Benedict wears the white Soutane, calls himself His Holiness Pope Benedict, intentionally lives within the Vatican, has the Prefect of the Papal Household as his Secretary, wears a Papal Ring (from Pope Paul, I believe), among many other actions and events, one cannot really honestly state what you do state: “Of course it was going to be vacant as Feb 28, 2013, 20:00 hours, Rome time…that was the ultimate point of the document. All of his actions demonstrate he intended the reality of the matter, e.g., see Normas Nonnnullas.”
Furthermore, if you hold that his resignation was valid, but also admit that he established a date separate from the date of his actual declaration of resignation, you are pitting yourself against a renowned Canonist whom Antonio had consulted concerning that later date of 28 February 2013 as the effective date for his resignation. In his book “The Secret of Benedict XVI, Is He Still the Pope?” Socci quotes Francisco Patruno as indicating that Benedict’s resignation would be invalid given that did set a later date. And since his resignation was invalid HE WOULD STILL BE POPE. You are going to have to be more consistent in your arguments if you are going to have any credibility.
It is true that Benedict, in his letter to Cardinal Brandmuller: “I can very well understand the deep-seated pain that the end of my papacy has inflicted on you and many others.” I do not read German, however, it is certain that Benedict is not going to tell the good Cardinal that is actually still Pope in a letter whose contents could easily become public.
Yes, you are correct in saying: “But, Socci seems to believe he kinda resigned and kinda didn’t. No?” He even suggests that Benedict resigned from all exercise of the three Powers of Office, but goes no further. In my Treatise, I do say the same thing, however, I maintain that it would not be right to “step aside” from all exercise and then rest on one’s laurels. this is because an office (MUNUS) means or connotes a DUTY; one must in some way, in order to hold the office has an obligation to exercise his power in some way.
But, Archbishop Ganswein provides the answer in his speech on 20 May 2016 at the Gregorian University. He says early in his talk there is ONLY ONE POPE, and then says in paragraph 18 of that speech: “He has left the Pontifical Throne and yet, with the step of 11 February 2013, has not absolutely abandoned this ministry. He has instead integrated/supplied the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as if a ministry in common, as if with this he had wanted to validate once again the invitation contained in that motto which the then Joseph Ratzinger took for himself as Archbishop of Munich and Freising and which later on he naturally maintained as Bishop of Rome: ‘cooperatores veritatis’, which signifies precisely ‘cooperators of truth.’” I explain that after resigning from the regular exercise of the three Powers of the Petrine Office, the Powers of Governance, of Teaching and of Order, he established a sort of “Curia” with two members; as Abp. says, there is an active member and a contemplative member. This does not signify any splitting of the Papacy; notice that Ganswein doesn’t say “two Popes,” but “two MEMBERS.” Simply put, Benedict is the contemplative member and Ganswerin is the active member, and they exercise the Power of Order in a special way, mainly by undertaking the requests of Our Lady of Prayer and Sacrifice. In this way Benedict carries out that which the Papacy is all about, namely the spiritual end for which Christ established the Church.
Again, regarding your original points 1 and 2, I certainly don’t believe “that events, circumstances, conditions in the Church” are not important. Of course, I consider them important. I am just not sure what you want me to address in reference to them and in specific regard to the question at hand: BiP. I certainly do not believe the points you make in 1 or 2 make your thesis more or less probable.
Regarding not knowing Latin. Yes, of course, it would be best if we all knew Latin. That is ideal. However, I do not believe lack of latin knowledge or of any other language is an insurmountable obstacle to entering the debate, or having and expressing an opinion. One looks for and finds translations to work with–in any field of study, as necessary. If you are not a full blown scholar of Greek, it should not be an absolute barrier to prevent one from discussing scripture. Certainly you cannot mean to say only Latinists can debate BiP. Obviously, one looks for translations to work with.
Given Br. Bugnolo has published a portion of his translation of the Declaratio and it is the only translation I am aware of that BiP theorists seem to accept, it makes sense for me to use it on that basis. I said that before. Now, you say above the “The reason Brother uses provides an Indicative translation is so that he can say that Benedict made a mistake and hence the resignation is invalid.” Perhaps you are not suggesting the contrary, but I fully accept that the reason Brother has translated it the way he has, is that it is the translation he fully believes is the most accurate. Whether it is the most accurate for other Latin scholars I have no clue–I am not a latinist, but perhaps the two of you might debate the question, citing other current Latin scholars as well.
Now, my point on your treatise’s discussion of the Latin was not intended to say because it is lengthy it is not true. Rather, I was making the point that to me, as a matter of common sense, your rendering must not be plain and obvious if it requires a treatise, which is not to say I therefore meant it was not true. Clearly, something might be neither plain nor obvious, but still be true. But, consider, if your rendering was the plain and obvious translation, certainly Br. Bugnolo and others would have reached the same conclusions as you. But he hasn’t, and “they” haven’t. Also, I’ve been rereading Socci recently, and I don’t recall him appealing to a translation similar to yours on this point. I assume some of the canonists he interviewed would have raised this specific translation issue if there was a dispute, and he would have raised it in his book if he thought it helped his argument. I don’t recall him doing that. If I am wrong on that score, please point out where Socci discusses it, as I’d be interested in seeing it.
Finally as to the munus vs. ministerium question, I’ve addressed this question on my blog (www.RomaLocutaEst.com), either in my series of rebuttals of Dr. Mazza’s thesis or of BiP in general (“Summa Contra BiP”).
From this quote from Part 1 of your Response to Dr. Mazza: “Reading this canon, BiP-ers observe that while canon 332.2 speaks of resigning the “munus”; Benedict specifically only renounces the “ministero.” This, they conclude, means that Benedict thought he could either (1) separate the ministry/ministero from the office/munus . . .,” you apparently hold that the Petrine Office and the exercise of it are one. This is not true! We must consider that the Munus Petrinum was established by Christ with three Powers: The Power of Governance, the Power of Teaching (Magisterium), which together make up the Power of Jurisdiction, as well as the Power of Order. These constitute the essence of the Petrine Office. Now, it is obvious that the Pope does not exercise the three Powers at once, nor does he exercise any Power continually!
In other words, if we consider the power of sight, we know that one doesn’t always have to be “seeing.” i.e. exercising that power. If he is sleeping, if he closes his eyes, if he needs strong glasses, it doesn’t mean that the Power is gone. If we take the last example, we could say that the power is damaged, but the power is still there. Hence, it cannot be said that the use (exercise) of the eye is in fact the power. If a house is wired so that electric “power” can run the lights in every room. Just because one or the other of the lights are not “on” it doesn’t mean that the power doesn’t exist. The power is at the switch but the switch may not be turned on. I think you get the idea. Power and the exercise of it are distinct. There is also a philosophical explanation, but there’s no need to go int it here.
But lets take a couple Popes in the History of the Church. Pope Caius lived at the time of the persecutions of the Church and at one point had to go into hiding. While in hiding, he was not able to exercise his power of Governance or his power of teaching. He could, however, exercise his power of Order, in a limited way. The same goes for Pope Gregory VII who went into exile toward the end of his life and for Pope Pius VII who was in captive by Napoleon. These latter two were not able to exercise their powers of Jurisdiction, though they could still to a certain extent exercise the Power of Order. Does this mean that they were no longer Pope? No, nowhere will one find that they were no longer considered Pope.
What Benedict did was to excuse himself from the normal “exercise” of the Three Powers by his Renunciation Declaration, but, but then he placed himself, canonically, in a position analogical position of the three Popes just mentioned as I explained in one of my above comments–creating a type of Curia with Benedict as the contemplative member and Abp. as the active member.
On the munus and ministerium question, you are reading into my statement, and incorrectly so–I do not believe the office and the exercise of it are the same thing. I suggest you read my 3-part rebuttal (and addendum) of Dr. Mazza’s thesis if you are interested in my position. The quote you selected is a restatement of the position of certain BiPers. The question was not whether the two things are distinct or not, but whether one is separable from the other, i.e., whether one could really resign the ministry only while keeping the munus. Some BiPers seem to say “yes” (e.g., Socci seems to think this) while others seem to say “no” — and, in the latter case, this constitutes a “substantial error” on Benedict’s part, making his resignation invalid.
Another example from earlier, Dr. Mazza argues via his theory (a BiP variant) that Benedict separated the “ministry of the Bishop of Rome” from the Petrine munus. Thus, he believes as I understand him, Benedict in his act of renunciation renounced ONLY being the Bishop of Rome while maintaining for himself the Petrine primacy. Thus, Dr. Mazza believes that although Francis really is the Bishop of Rome, he not hold the Petrine Primacy.
In my rebuttal of Dr. Mazza, I granted, arguendo, his premise that such a separation was possible. However, my personal view is such a separation is impossible, i.e., my view is that the Petrine primacy in Rome is Divinely willed. Furthermore, I would also reject that Benedict could truly resign only the “active ministry” while keeping some sort of “contemplative ministry” of the Petrine ministry for himself. I reject that it is possible. I reject that is what he either actually did, or attempted to do. Thus, I must reject your thesis as well.
Anyway, I will not argue the case all over again in detail here…that’s why I have a blog of my own. 🙂 You are welcome to read what I believe and argue there in detail, and comment to your heart’s content, as is anyone else for that matter. I am generally pretty good about responding to everyone, though I cannot guarantee you’ll like my answers any better there.
OK so you do maintain that the Office and the “exercise” of the Office are distinct, since you say that “I do not believe the office and the exercise of it are the same thing.” However, you question “whether one could really resign the ministry only while keeping the munus.” But since they are in fact distinct, it cannot be denied that it is possible that they can be separated. The real question is whether it is proper to do so. In one of my comments above I indicated that it would be improper to do so, but please listen to a Canonist. Socci, in his latest book on Benedict states: The canonical literature is unanimous. Luigi Chiappetta writes that ‘the Roman Pontiff freely accepts his office, and he can freely renounce it, presuming for liceity (through a moral, non-juridical impetus) a just and proprotionate reason.” A serious reason is generally considered to be a loss of mental faculties; otherwise, while it would be a valid resignation, it would be a morally deplorable act. The canonist Carlo Fantappie also confirms that the renunciation of the papacy can happen only ‘in truly exceptional cases and for the superior good of the Church.’ This is ‘the condition for renouncing the office [of pope] without falling into a grave fault before God.” This should be sufficient to dispel any doubt you have about “resign[ing] the ministry only while keeping the munus.”
Furthermore, the three instances, mentioned in an earlier comment, when previous Popes were forced through circumstances of hiding, exile or captivity which made it impossible to for them to exercise the Powers of Teaching and Governing, though they could exercise the Power of Order to a certain extent, they were still considered Pope, and without any moral guilt from the non-exercise of the Jurisdictional Powers.
For Benedict while he was active, there is no question that he was being forced by the “deep state” in the Church, over which he had NO CONTROL, to do what he knew was wrong and being prevented from doing what he knew should be done. Thus he said at his last General Audience on 27 Feb. 2013: “I have asked God insistently in prayer to grant me his light and to help me make the right decision, not for my own good, but for the good of the Church. I have taken this step with full awareness of its gravity and even its novelty, but with profound interior serenity. Loving the Church means also having the courage to make difficult, painful decisions, always looking to the good of the Church and not of oneself.”
Nevertheless, having renounced the usual exercise all three Powers in his Declaration, he did not allow himself to be without some exercise of his Power of Order. Further on in the Audience he says: I no longer bear [the Italian verb “porto” can also mean ‘carry out’] the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.” And as mentioned in a comment farther up, he set up a kind of Curia with himself as the contemplative member and Abp. Gainswein as the active member, precisely in order be able to exercise the Power of Order. To do this, I maintain that with the great power a Pope posses, it was to epieikeia that Benedict had recourse. In his “Canon Law” textbook Cicognani defines epieikeia as “The benign application of the law according to what is good and equitable, which decides that the lawgiver does not intend that, because of exceptional circumstances, some particular case be included under his general law.” Benedict therefore had the right and duty to establish a means if exercising, to a certain extent, the Power of Order.
A typical “debate” with Steven O’Reilly (I have had many of these things):
Me: Pope Benedict is still Pope because he did not properly resign his Office. He only resigned his Ministry, not his office. It is clearly stated that way in his original Latin resignation text. He resigned Ministry. He specifically retained Munus. It’s right there … on paper … everyone can see it. That is substantial error. Canon 188. He remains Pope if he did not properly manifest a renunciation.
Steven: No, that would be substantial error. The Pope cannot separate his Office and Ministry. That is an error, substantial error and he can’t do it. Ontologically, that is not possible. Resignation valid. Not Pope.
Me: Right, I agree. He is in error, he can’t do it that way and that is why he objectively failed to properly resign according to Canon Law, Divine Law and he is still Pope.
Steven: No, he can’t do it like that, so it didn’t happen and he is not Pope.
Me: But he did do it and that is why he committed substantial error, failed to resign properly and is still Pope.
Steven: He didn’t do it because he can’t do it. If he did do it it would be substantial error and he can’t commit that error for the resignation to be valid. He resigned both because he has to and he is not Pope.
Me: Right, it is a major error. That is the whole point. He committed error and that rendered his resignation invalid. Still Pope.
Steven: No, he can’t do that. It is error. Substantial,error. You can’t divide the ministry and munus. Resigned completely. Even though he said he didn’t, he did. Because he has to. Not Pope.
Me: But that is what he clearly said in his resignation. That is impossible to resigns partially, as you say, so his resignation is not valid and so he retains his prior state as Pope.
Steven: He can’t have said that because that would be substantial error. Please see my web site to understand my further explanations on how this is all substantial error and is not possible according to Canon Law. Not Pope.
Me: But we already agree it is an error. Textbook definition of Canon 188 substantial error. So he is still Pope.
Steven: Yes, that error is not possible, which means he didn’t make an error, because it can never be. So his resignation was valid which is why he is no longer Pope.
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
Will “America’s Dumbest Drug Salesman” Sean Hannity, Tucker & “Pro-Vaccine Frauds at Fox News” also do an About Face on the Evidence of the Biden Steal?
Independent and fearless journalist Emerald Robinson said it best on Fox News’ about face:
Sean Hannity now wants you to forget his role as America’s dumbest drug salesman
“Very soon, there will be hundreds of health officials saying, “It was your choice. No one made you take it.” — Dr. Robert Malone
In case you missed it, the pro-vaccine frauds at Fox News are trying to pivot away from pushing the experimental Big Pharma shots day and night for two years — it’s almost like the Pfizer and Moderna advertising dollars have suddenly dried up!
Watch Sean Hannity attempt to walk back his years-long role as America’s dumbest Pfizer salesman. Perhaps he can hear the lawsuits coming.
Hannity didn’t tell anyone to get vaccinated? Hannity told everyone to get vaccinated — and he told them practically every night for a year.
“And it absolutely makes sense for many Americans to get vaccinated. I believe in science, I believe in the science of vaccination.” — Sean Hannity, July 2021
Why is Hannity trying to gaslight his own audience in 2022? He must know that bamboozling them about the shots will carry an enormous price tag — and it’s a bill that he’s not willing to pay.
Let’s not forget: Hannity and the rest of the Big Pharma pimps at Fox News also relied on the very fat and very stupid Dr. Marc Siegel as their “medical expert” to push the shots in every time slot for the last two years. [https://emeralddb3.substack.com/p/the-vaccine-money-has-dried-up-at]
Since Fox News, Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have decided to do an about face on the COVID vaccine, might they also do the same on the evidence for the Joe Biden Steal?
In 2020, General Michael Flynn said “@TuckerCarlson you’re still not being genuine.” An antonym for phony is genuine and a synonym for “not… genuine” is phony. It appears that General Michael Flynn possibly called Tucker Carlson a phony:
– “Come on @TuckerCarlson you’re still not being genuine. @SidneyPowell1 is slaying dragons with her small team and you sit on high and pontificate. Go do some street journalism and ask the tough questions yourself. Why the hell not!?”
Why did Fox News as well as Tucker Carlson and 95 percent of “conservative” media such the the New York Post and Washington Times as well as “conservative” talk radio like Leghorn’s archenemy George P. Dog not allowed to go passed the line with the sign that reads “Rope Limit”?
Why is the massive voter fraud “constitutional travesty” Biden Steal cover-up of the liberal media and FBI the “Rope Limit”?
Why is even discussing the possibility of the massive voter fraud “constitutional travesty” Biden Steal cover-up of the liberal media and FBI beyond the “Rope Limit”?
In 2016, Michael Anton wrote the article “The Flight 93 Election” that Rush Limbaugh said was “one of the greatest columns ever written” explaining that that election was “the most important one America has faced in more than a century.”
He said immediately after the 2020 election night that this election was “the most important one America has [ever] faced” and showed that the Joe Biden Steal is a deadly real “coup” that will kill America as a free nation.
The Anton essay “The Flight 93 Election” is more overwhelmingly important now than then if we are to save America from Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc.’s betrayal of the United States to the Biden Steal. Here is a taste of that important article:
Conservatism, Inc.’s, “answer” to the first may, at this point, simply be dismissed. If the conservatives wish to have a serious debate, I for one am game—more than game; eager. The problem of “subjective certainty” can only be overcome by going into the agora. But my attempt to do so—the blog that Kesler mentions—was met largely with incredulity. How can they say that?! How can anyone apparently of our caste (conservative intellectuals) not merely support Trump (however lukewarmly) but offer reasons for doing do? [https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/the-flight-93-election/]
Finally, here is just the iceberg tip of the mountain of evidence that there was voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election:
– Dominion Contractor Says She Witnessed Fraudulent Actions at Detroit Ballot-Count Site [https://www.theepochtimes.com/dominion-contractor-says-she-witnessed-fra]
– Fellow at Hoover Institution: “To Lose a Margin of 58 to 41 with 600 to 700 Thousand Votes with One & Half million Mail-in Ballots… how… Statistically Possible”[https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/11/fellow-at-hoover-institution-to-lose.html]
– On Oct. 11, Judge “Agreed” that “Dominion… presented ‘Serious System Security Vulnerability… Issues that may place… Voters at Risk… of their… Right to Cast an Effective Vote'” [ttps://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/11/on-oct-11-judge-agreed-that-dominion.html]
– Exclusive: Rep. Paul Gosar Suggests Some Election Results ‘Very Skewed,’ Citing Reported Software Glitch [https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-rep-paul-gosar-suggests-some-election-results-very-skewed-citing-reported-software-glitch_3569629.html]
– “INCONCEIVABLE”: “Exact same Ratio” Hour after hour was “% Biden 54” to “% Trump 45” can “make No Logical Sense other than to Assume Fraud” [https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/11/inconceivable-exact-same-ratio-hour.html]
– “STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE”: There’s “1 Nonagintillion is equal to 1.0E+261 trillions” Chance that there was no Biden Voter Fraud in the Georgia Election [https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/11/statistically-impossible-theres-1.html]
– 2012 Palm Beach Post: Dominion “’Shortcoming’ led to Votes being Assigned to the Wrong Candidates… Declaring the Wrong Winners”[https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/11/2012-palm-beach-post-dominion.html]
– Blabber Buzz News: “More Proof Of Fraud: ‘Hundreds Of Boxes’ Of Ballots ‘Ditched’, Then Found ‘Uncounted’ On Friday” [https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/11/blabber-buzz-news-more-proof-of-fraud.html]
– Democracy Institute Poll: “Biden Underperformed Hillary Clinton in every Major Metro area around the Country, Save for Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta and Philadelphia” [https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/11/democracy-institute-poll-biden.html]
– Bishop Gracida says “FRAUD: YOUR NAME IS DEMOCRAT”: “Report… Michigan USPS Whistleblower claims Superiors Instructed Employees to Back-date Mail-in-ballots coming in after November 3rd” [https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/11/bishop-gracida-says-fraud-your-name-is.html and “FRAUD: YOUR NAME IS DEMOCRAT”: https://abyssum.org/2020/11/05/fraud-your-name-is-democrat/]
– Poll: 30 Percent of Democrats “Believe the Election was Stolen from Trump” & apparently are Complicit in a “Criminal Conspiracy… Unparalleled in our History” [https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/11/poll-30-percent-of-democrats-believe.html]
– Media Misinformation: “Thousands of Votes found for @realDonaldTrump in Georgia… so many Discrepancies… couldn’t even Certify a Winner for a Local Office… Media Response… NOTHING TO SEE HERE” [https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/11/media-misinformation-thousands-of-votes.html and
– Gateway Pundit: Rudy Giuliani revealed that Dominion Whistleblowers have “Evidence of the 100,000 Votes coming in. And they have some Photographs also” [https://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/11/gateway-pundit-rudy-giuliani-revealed.html and
–Pre-Election Concerns Over Dominion Voting Systems Highlighted in Georgia Lawsuit Cyber security expert raised concerns over integrity of system, including external vulnerabilities, in sworn statement [https://www.theepochtimes.com/pre-election-concerns-over-dominion-voting-systems-highlighted-in-georgia-lawsuit_3576863.html]
Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia.
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.
Francis Notes:
– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:
“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.” (The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html
– LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:
The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”
– On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:
“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”
– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:
“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.
What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1]
Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on Will “America’s Dumbest Drug Salesman” Sean Hannity, Tucker & “Pro-Vaccine Frauds at Fox News” also do an About Face on the Evidence of the Biden Steal?
Good riddance to Fauci and his calamitous, costly career
By John Tierney
August 23, 2022
Dr. Anthony Fauci announced that he will be retiring in December.
Whatever comes next in the pandemic, we all have cause to rejoice at the best news since the arrival of the COVID vaccine: Anthony Fauci, the president’s chief medical adviser, has announced his retirement. His long and singularly disastrous career ends in December.
Never in the history of the public-health profession has anyone been so richly rewarded for doing so much harm to the public’s health. Whether or not he helped start the COVID pandemic — by funding dangerous research in the Chinese lab that may have created the coronavirus — he promoted a series of policies in America and the rest of the world that did even more damage than the virus.
Except possibly for the Great Depression, the lockdowns were the costliest public-policy mistake ever made during peacetime in America.
Fauci got away with it by invoking the authority of science while violating its fundamental principles. Before COVID arrived, the world’s leading epidemiologists had warned that lockdowns would be futile and cause catastrophic collateral damage, but Fauci simply ignored that advice.
As evidence mounted of the policies’ failure, he persisted by deploying the skills honed during five decades in Washington: bureaucratic infighting, media manipulation, and fearmongering.
In the 1980s, he made national news by warning that the AIDS virus could be spread by “routine close contact” among family members, becoming one of the early prophets of the AIDS “heterosexual breakout” that would supposedly decimate the general population. That prospect needlessly terrified the public for more than a decade, but it boosted public funding for AIDS research, including a long and costly Fauci project to develop an AIDS vaccine.
The vaccine venture failed, but it enabled Fauci and two of his collaborators, Deborah Birx and Robert Redfield, to develop a relationship that they exploited during their service on the White House COVID Task Force. Birx, the task force’s coordinator, and Redfield, the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, joined with Fauci to bully the Trump administration into following their dictates on COVID.
The three secretly agreed to all resign if any of them were fired, and they never disagreed with one another at the task force meetings, as Scott Atlas recounts in his Washington memoir, A Plague Upon Our House.
Atlas, a health-policy analyst at the Hoover Institution, tried getting his colleagues at the meetings to consider the evidence that lockdowns and mask mandates were not working, but the three bureaucrats had no interest in debating it — or bothering to read the studies. To his amazement, they made no pretense of conducting any sort of cost-benefit analysis of their policies and never deigned to even discuss the vast social and economic collateral damage.
They were bureaucrats solely focused on compelling the public to follow their arbitrary rules. There was no reason to force vaccinations on people who had already acquired natural immunity to COVID, but the bureaucrats were determined to punish anyone who defied their authority — and silence any scientist who criticized them.
Early in the pandemic, prominent virologists expressed concerns by email that the virus had been created in the Wuhan laboratory, but they publicly dismissed that possibility after a teleconference with Fauci and other officials who had been funding research at the lab.
When eminent researchers from Oxford, Harvard, and Stanford issued the Great Barrington Declaration, calling for a traditional public-health policy focused on protecting the vulnerable instead of shutting down society, Fauci dismissed it as “total nonsense,” and the mainstream media, as usual, parroted his smears and claims.
Fauci owed much of his success to decades of cultivating the right journalists — always quick to return a phone call or email, always available for a TV appearance, and always happy to provide an authoritative quotation when he had no idea what he was talking about. Above all, he was always ready to satisfy journalists’ need for scary news and doomsday predictions.
Terrifying the public was good for business. The journalists were rewarded more clicks and higher ratings; Fauci and his fellow bureaucrats amassed more power and bigger budgets.
Fauci became the highest-paid federal employee, earning more than $400,000 per year, and stands to collect a pension estimated at $350,000 a year. That’s an appalling sum, considering the lasting harm he has done to children and adults in America and the rest of the world. But it’s a small price to be rid of him.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on GOOD BYE ANTHONY FAUCI AND GOOD RIDDANCE
The late spring scenario of a massive GOP win—in historic proportions analogous to 1938, 1994, or 2010—is said now to be “iffy.”
The Left boasts that it now has a chance at keeping the House, with even better odds for maintaining control over the Senate.
Polls are all over the place. Now they show generic Republican leads, now Democratic.
The general experience in polling is that they are more often conducted by left-leaning institutions and massaged to show Democratic “momentum.”
Since the polling meltdown of 2016—when most polls showed a Hillary Clinton Electoral College landslide—they have regained little credibility.
Current progressive heartthrob and spoiler Representative Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) was polled at only 20 percent behind in her recent primary—only to be crushed in the end, losing by over 37 percent.
The corporate leftist media does its part by glorifying a now dynamic “Aviator Joe.”
Biden in cool sunglasses is now constructed into a swaggering “Top Gun” Tom Cruise-like figure, rather than a cognitively challenged 79-year-old.
Biden’s just passed reconciliation Inflation Reduction Act, according to most experts, will raise taxes even on the middle class and spur inflation. So, the media euphemistically renames it a “climate change bill.”
With a stroke of his pen before the midterms, Biden forgives $300 billion in student debt—without a care for the dutiful who paid their loans off or those who did not go to college but will now pay for those that did.
If inflation is running at 8.5 percent over last July’s prices, the White House giddily announces inflation is “zero”because it did not climb at 9.1 percent over 2021 prices—as it did in June.
That’s like saying someone entombed in a sinkhole 10 feet below ground is no longer trapped at all since he floated up one foot since falling.
In California, when $6.50 a gallon gas dipped last month to $5.50 a gallon, Biden pronounced the end of high energy costs. He forgets that during his watch, gas prices doubled and remain $2.50 a gallon higher than they were on Inauguration Day.
Despite the propaganda, the Republicans seem confident nonetheless because of the dismal 40 percent approval ratings of Joe Biden and his even less popular agenda.
Crime is out of control. The Left blew up the southern border. Biden has waged war on energy production and deliberately spiked gas costs.
Foreign policy is in shambles. Racial relations are scary. Historically, presidents are shellacked in their first midterms.
So, there should be a Republican tsunami.
But will there be?
So far, the Republicans have not nationalized congressional races with a uniform Contract with America, an agenda that they will seek to enact the moment they take Congress.
If all Republican candidates run on what the Left has done to America in less than two years and offer a systematic corrective, they will win. If they get bogged down in the 24-hour news cycle they will flounder.
Conservatives seem oblivious to the current left-wing strategy. That is odd since it is unchanged since the Russian collusion hoax and the psychodramatic Ukrainian phone call impeachment.
The left-wing playbook is based on two pillars: the FBI raid on Donald Trump’s home, the January 6 “insurrection”investigation—and selective daily leaking about both.
About every week, in efforts at mass distraction from the dismal record of Joe Biden, we will hear of a new “bombshell” and “walls-are-closing-in” Justice Department or FBI leak to an obsequious media.
In 24-hour cycles, we will hear more about how Donald Trump supposedly stole “nuclear secrets”!
And “informed but anonymous sources insist” that Trump is trying to sell memorabilia. Or is Trump trying to hide January 6 evidence at his home? Or was it those Russian collusion files?
Sanctimonious Attorney General Merrick Garland will fight tooth and nail not to release an unredacted historic fishing-expedition affidavit for a warrant to meander through the closets of the Trump home. But he certainly will redact—and leak.
The January 6 committee will continue to subpoena and flip witnesses with threats of indictments, certain doom before biased Washington, D.C. juries, and crushing legal bills.
Between the raid and the star-chamber House inquiry, we are supposed to forget unaffordable gas and food, dangerous U.S. cities, over 3 million people swarming the border, and the Afghanistan debacle.
Big Tech in November as in 2020 will again flood registrars with billions of dollars in dark money—while denying it.
They will censor and expunge anything unflattering to the Left on social media—and claim they do not.
The Left will systematically try to ensure that, as in 2020, only 30 percent of the electorate vote in person on election day—as they plead they are underfunded and disorganized.
Yet if the Republicans advance a coherent national plan of action to restore a pre-Biden America, if Donald Trump will focus positively on national issues and not take the bait to obsess on the wrongs done to him, and if grass-roots conservatives this time around prepare to preempt massive left-wing vote harvesting, they will achieve their blowout.
But that is a lot of ifs. And meanwhile, time grows short.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on With a stroke of his pen before the midterms, Biden forgives $300 billion in student debt—without a care for the dutiful who paid their loans off or those who did not go to college but will now pay for those that did.
When my younger brother and I were riding in the backseat of the family sedan, back in the 1940s, our parents had to physically separate us because we would get into fights. Each one would be banned to a corner. To this day I remain amazed at the patience and tolerance of my parents who managed to maintain their love for us despite our efforts to disrupt family trips.
I see the same type of conduct today, both real and threatened, between the two political parties. Way back when my brother and I were fighting, the turmoil disrupted the family journey, distracted whoever was driving, sometimes required a complete cessation of the trip to deal with the fighting, certainly was distressful to my parents, and, of course, never really settled anything between us two kids. Time, years, in fact, took care of the problem and the two of us get along quite nicely at present.
For the past few years, the Democratic Party has been attacking the Republican Party, publicly and privately, with energy and dedication that is almost embarrassing. In 2016 Donald Trump, a Republican, was elected President, beating the Democratic candidate. From before the election, when there was the usual give-and-take of political fighting, to the present time (after the next Democratic candidate prevailed over Trump in the 2020 election) the Democrats have maintained a steady campaign of attack and accusations and blaming (for everything from white supremacy to causing climate change) Trump, all his iterations and all his followers; Donald Trump the individual, Trump the presumed standard bearer of the Republican Party, all those who voted for Trump in the past two national elections and all who profess to support Trump at present and anyone who dares claim adherence to the Republican Party.
Trump won the 2016 election through the Electoral College. The Dems want to abolish the electoral college and let a simple majority of voters elect the President (the number of voters in the major coastal cities of this country is sufficient to make an electing majority). Trump, during his Presidency, appointed two Justices to the US Supreme Court. This made the majority of Justices, appointees of Republican Presidents. The Dems want to increase the number of Justices to at least 11, permitting the current sitting US President the opportunity to appoint two Justices…thus making the majority of Justices Democrat appointees. Federal law specifies a process for potential immigrants to become citizens but the Democrat Administration of President Biden has virtually opened the southern border and allowed roughly three million immigrants to enter the country, has bussed, flown, and otherwise transferred these undocumented (and illegal entrants) people to many cities where Republican voters predominate. The further plan is apparently to give “amnesty” (i.e., an excuse for otherwise illegal entry into our country) and voting privileges to these immigrants who, so the assumption goes, will be so grateful [for being admitted to and canonized as citizens of the USA] they will vote Democrat.
During Trump’s Presidency the Democrats devoted much time and energy to marginally voting to impeach him and after he was voted out of office have continued to spend much time and energy (and money) on the so-called Jan-6 investigation in the so-far vain hopes of finding that scintilla of evidence that will forever bury him from again holding office.
As we contemplate the current political climate (“current”meaning now as we are a little more than two months away from the mid-term elections and what looks like an ultimate Republican control of Congress) we are hearing promises, threats, statements of intention from Republicans that PAY-BACK IS COMING, that [presumably] when Republicans take over Congress they will begin a campaign of retribution, of revenge, of tit-for-tat.
We are hearing “promises” that miscreants in the current Democrat Administration will be investigated, will be impeached, will not merely be thwarted in their evil ways but will be somehow punished for their multiple transgressions against the traditional concepts of good governance and [sorry, couldn’t resist using this word] polite politics!
While such “threats” might all be well and good, they do not ring true when considering the concepts of good government. Unquestionably the Democrats wasted millions of dollars and months attacking (and continuing to attack) Trump. Now we are hearing the Republicans promising to do the same thing all over again…only this time against selected Democrat demons. How is this going to serve the country?
The Democrats or at least this Democrat Administration has passed laws, issued executive orders, and directed the FBI and other government agencies to ignore (and attack) Constitutional directives of free speech, freedom of assembly, independence of the Judiciary, the Second Amendment as well as many of the traditional and customary (and effective) policies concerning voting and political practices and parliamentary maneuverings.
So now a potential Republican-controlled Congress will have the opportunity to right those wrongs, correct the misdirection this country has taken over the past almost two years, resurrect those governing principles that brought America to its greatness, and move the country in the direction the vast majority of honest American voters would like to see.
Now, assuming the predictions are accurate and come to pass, the Republican-controlled Congress can re-direct the miserably-conceived laws that have brought America to its knees and bring back the energy and focus of good government that we sorely lack at present.
I would be sorely disappointed to hear news broadcast and read editorials about how national Republican office-holders spin their wheels investigating and castigating former government administrators…instead of reading and hearing stories about inspiring legislation, about growing public belief in the integrity of elected representatives, about a growing reputation of our system of government and the positive and productive actions to overhaul the military mismanagement and failing national education programs and other current ills.
The present conduct of this Administration has opened the door to multiple avenues of legitimate criticism (i.e. in fields of rising crime, loss of the effectiveness of law enforcement, energy dissipation, misdirection of education, and a host of other ailments) as well as the multiple opportunities for future realignment of purpose. Let us witness a concerted national effort to re-direct past misdirections and to bring back our national pride, the reverence for tradition, and the God-given values that have helped the Nation achieve its past glories.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on For the past few years, the Democratic Party has been attacking the Republican Party, publicly and privately, with energy and dedication that is almost embarrassing.
George Soros’ Legacy Of Bigotry August 25, 2022 Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on George Soros’ attacks on religion:Few persons have done more damage to free societies than George Soros, the Hungarian-born billionaire. Yet in left-wing circles, the 92-year-old is regarded as a hero. That may have something to do with the fact that his Open Society Foundations have been greasing them for decades. Less well known is his record of bigotry. Soros is known as a “self-hating Jew.” As a young man in Hungary he became a Nazi collaborator. In a “60 Minutes” interview, Soros admitted that he helped confiscate property from Jews. He told Steve Kroft that he never regretted doing so. When asked if this was difficult, Soros said, “Not, not at all. Not at all.” Stunned, Kroft said, “No feeling of guilt?” “No” came the reply. The hatred that Soros has for Israel is indisputable. He funds groups such as Bend the Arc, a far-left Jewish group that supports anti-Semites such as Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib. He also throws considerable money at the BDS movement (boycott, divestment and sanctions) which is trying to bankrupt Israel. By funding Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch, he is instrumental in branding Israel an “apartheid” racist state, the two bodies promoting this cause. Soros has a long history of supporting anti-Catholicism. Catholics for Choice is the oldest anti-Catholic “Catholic” entity in the modern era. Though no organization has given it more money than the Ford Foundation, Soros’ foundations have not been miserly. This letterhead has a history of lying about the Church’s official teaching on abortion. In January, Catholics for Choice vandalized the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. At a prayer vigil that was held there before the March for Life, the Soros-funded entity desecrated the Basilica by using light-projecting technology to post anti-Catholic messages on it. When President Obama was in power, the atheist billionaire threw his weight behind Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United, two Catholic front-groups founded to manipulate Catholic voters. Both of the two anti-Catholic “Catholic” groups were founded in 2005, following the defeat of John Kerry the year before. Kerry lost to President George W. Bush in part because of the “values voters,” mostly Catholic and evangelical Protestants who stood for traditional values. Soros wasn’t happy with these traditionalists, or the outcome, and sought a corrective by establishing phony Catholic groups to alter the political landscape. It was a stealth campaign to end all stealth campaigns. There was nothing Catholic about either of these entities, but they gave the impression to the public that one could be a Catholic in good standing and oppose the Church’s teachings on marriage, the family and sexuality. In 2016, they came crashing down. That is when the Wikileaks revelations became public. Leaked emails showed that John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, sought to create mutiny in the Catholic Church by funding Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United. One of Podesta’s associates, Sandy Newman, said there was a need for a “Catholic spring,” and that the goal should be to “plant the seeds of the revolution.” Made possible, of course, with Soros’ money. There is one other aspect to this story worth mentioning. After Obama was elected in 2008, the IRS contacted me to say that the Catholic League was under investigation for violating IRS strictures for non-profit organizations. After the probe was finally finished, we received a slap on the wrist. I promised the IRS official I would not stop hammering pro-abortion anti-Catholic politicians, and that he should inform his superiors of my pledge. More important, I told him that I knew who was behind the attempt to destroy me. Just before the 2008 election, a CNN staffer sent me copies of a long document detailing news releases I had sent that allegedly violated IRS rules. She did this because the person who sent it to her tried to get me kicked off TV; he sent the document to validate his request. When the IRS complaint was sent to me before Thanksgiving in 2008, I quickly concluded that it looked amazingly like the document forwarded to me by the CNN employee. It was sent to her by Catholics United. In other words, Soros was behind the attempt to silence the Catholic League. He lost. It’s too bad he hasn’t lost more often—his legacy of hate has done much harm.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on MEET GEORGE SOROS, BUT DON’T LET HIM LEARN THAT YOU ARE A CATHOLIC REPUBLICAN
George Soros Will Have A Huge Victory If Karen Bass Wins
(PresidentialWire.com)- The effort to recall Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón failed this week after county officials rejected nearly 200,000 petition signatures.
The petition needed 566,857 signatures to get the recall on the November ballot. And while the petition secured over 715,833, enough of the signatures were rejected for the petition to fail.
LA County officials rejected ballots for reasons like signature mismatches or wrong addresses.
Ironically, during the 2020 presidential election, LA County rejected less than 1 percent of mail-in ballots. In this recall petition, LA County rejected almost 30 percent of the signatures.
County officials refused to permit observers to watch the signature verification process, arguing that a recall petition drive is not the same as an election, therefore they didn’t need to have observers.
Those involved in the effort to recall Gascón were hopeful of success after the recall effort against San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin led to his removal by voters.
Like Boudin, Gascón is one of the pro-criminal prosecutors supported by billionaire Leftist George Soros. His financial backing was pivotal to getting leading Democrats, including LA Mayor Eric Garcetti, to support Gascón over incumbent Democrat District Attorney Jackie Lacey in 2020.
Los Angeles mayoral candidate Democrat Congresswoman Karen Bass also supported Gascón in 2020. Despite widespread public opposition to Gascón’s policies, Bass has not withdrawn her support for him.
Her opponent in the race, Democrat Rick Caruso, had initially supported Gascón but ultimately endorsed the recall effort against him.
The only LA County elected official who has consistently opposed Gascón’s “progressive reform” agenda has been Democrat Sheriff Alex Villanueva.
But with Villanueva facing a difficult reelection race and the recall effort off the table, a Karen Bass victory in the mayor’s race would ensure George Soros’ scheme to push “criminal justice reform” in Los Angeles will likely go unchallenged.
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on IS GEORGE SOROS THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN AMERICA?
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.