I strongly suspected the reports from Kim Davis’ circle of her positive meeting and support from Pope Francis would not last long. The Vatican is now backing off claims that she had an “audience,” but instead says that she was just one of many people greeted that day:
In an official statement this morning, Fr. Federico Lombardi, head of the Vatican press office downplayed Pope Francis’ meeting with Kim Davis.
“Pope Francis met with several dozen persons who had been invited by the Nunciature to greet him as he prepared to leave Washington for New York City,” said Lombardi. “Such brief greetings occur on all papal visits and are due to the Pope’s characteristic kindness and availability.” [That does not mean he did not meet with Davis one on one. This is spin, it’s not a lie but it’s not the truth, either]
“The only real audience granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with one of his former students and his family,” Fr. Lombardi added. [So now we’re down to parsing what a “real” audience is?]
The Vatican explained that the “brief” meeting between the Pope and Davis has “continued to provoke comments and discussion” and thus offered his explanation “in order to contribute to an objective understanding of what transpired.” [We’re trying desperately to placate harsh criticism in the US media and probably among the gay lobby in the Vatican. So now the media knows that a little pressure works in rolling this Pope, as if they didn’t know before. And don’t tell me this is the Vatican press office going off like a loose cannon. In this most authoritarian of pontificates, nothing “just happens.”]
Fr. Lombardi said, “The Pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects.” [Complex?!? She thinks sodomite marriage an offense against God and nature. She will have no part in it. Not hard to understand]
News that the pope had secretly met with Davis during his trip to the U.S. broke on Tuesday evening, after her lawyer made the meeting public. Davis said that Francis had told her to “stay strong,” giving both her and her husband a rosary. “Please pray for me,” he requested………
………In a new statement today, Davis’ lawyer, Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, disputed reports circulating in light of the Vatican’s newest statement suggesting that Davis had simply met the pope as one in a line of people.
“There were no other people in the room,” he said. “This was a private meeting between Pope Francis and Kim and Joe Davis. This was not a meeting with other people in which Kim and Joe Davis were a part, but rather a private meeting with no other people in the room except Vatican security and personnel.”
Staver acknowledged that the pope “was not weighing in on particular facts of a legal case,” but added that “his statements about religious freedom and his encouragement to Kim Davis to ‘stray strong’ during a private meeting reaffirm the human right to conscientious objection. This is a right for everyone.”
Staver also said that the meeting was initiated by the Vatican, an apparent response to speculation that the meeting with the pope may have been arranged by a conservative bishop in the U.S., perhaps without the full knowledge of the Vatican or the pope about Davis’ case…….
…….[And now we get the spin of uber-weasel Fr. Tom Rosica]However, English-language spokesman for the Vatican, Fr. Thomas Rosica, placed the responsibility for the meeting in the hands of U.S. papal nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò.
“Who brought her in? The nuncio,” Father Rosica told the New York Times. “The Nunciature was able to bring in donors, benefactors.”
Fr. Rosica added: ““I would simply say: Her case is a very complex case. It’s got all kinds of intricacies. Was there an opportunity to brief the pope on this beforehand? I don’t think so. A list is given — these are the people you are going to meet.”
Rosica responded to a question about whether the Vatican press office had been unaware of the pope’s meeting with Davis, saying: “No, but I think we may not have been aware of the full impact of the meeting. It is very difficult sometimes when you are looking at things in America from here.” [How about let your yes be yes and your no be no, Fr. Tom?]
The force is strong in the sodomite mafia. Whether the pressure came from a US media gone over full bore into advocacy for perversion, or from the still extant sodomite lobby in the Vatican (or both), the Vatican has changed its tune. They are throwing Kim Davis under the bus. The Davis camp clearly refutes the Vatican allegations. I hope someone recorded the visit. This could get ugly before it’s over.
Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive! But whatever the reason for this meeting with Davis, the Synod will make all quite clear.
National Right to Life: 2016 more important than stopping murder and sale of baby parts October 2, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, asshatery, contraception, disaster, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, unbelievable BS.
Congress just passed “temporary” funding bills that will continue to keep federal dollars rolling into Planned Barrenhood for some time. Many widely expect Republicans to continue to do so, to prevent their members from having to vote for or against a measure funding Planned Barrenhood. These temporary measures also keep RINO names from being attached to disastrously large, debt-inducing appropriations bills. It’s the new way of running government for the benefit of the elite, not passing proper bills and laws but just hacking together temporary measures to better aid their political fortunes.
It seems National Right to Life is fully supportive of this. They continue to maintain the delusion that 2016 might be a banner year of Republicans (it won’t) and that 2016 represents the best chance to end Roe v. Wade in a generation. As if. I don’t know where they get their delusions, in reality, these are hard-bitten political veterans who know better than anyone Roe won’t be going away anytime in the foreseeable future, these excuses are simply for public consumption, to explain away their all-too-cozy relationship with a Republican party too concerned about its electoral future to stop the mass slaughter of children and sale of murdered baby parts. LSN reports:
For weeks, leading pro-life groups have urged Congress to defund Planned Parenthood. This week, however, both chambers passed government funding bills that funded the government — including its funding of Planned Parenthood — until December.
Shortly before the vote, LifeSiteNews spoke with the leader of one of the few pro-life groups urging Congress to avoid a full-tilt defunding fight until 2017 — after a pro-life president can be elected.
“There was a government shutdown in 2013 because people wanted to see Obamacare repealed,” said National Right to Life’s Carol Tobias. “The repeal didn’t happen, and Republican numbers were in the tank until the disastrous rollout of Obamacare, which became a national joke. I don’t know that we can count on something like that next year to happen.”…….
……NRLC has not been shy about going against the pro-life grain. In 2013, it targeted two no-exceptions representatives from Georgia who opposed the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” because the bill allowed for the abortion of children conceived through rape.
Last year, the national pro-life organization dropped its affiliation with Georgia Right to Life because of the latter’s opposition to exceptions in pro-life legislation. A new, untested group — Georgia Life Alliance — became the new state partner. [Well that is DANGED interesting, and mirrors the division between Texas Right to Life – a no exceptions type group – and Texas Alliance for Life, which this writer has observed to be willing to make a lot of exceptions]
………”I hate to say this, but in 2012, pro-lifers lost. And babies are paying the price. We have to do everything we can to make sure that doesn’t happen in 2016, because we don’t want another four years, or eight years, of a pro-abortion president who is going to defend Planned Parenthood and defend abortion,” explains Tobias. The next president will “appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will, maybe five years, 10 years, 15 years down the road, be able to overturn Roe v. Wade.” [Uh huh. How many Republican-nominated justices do their have to be to overturn Roe v. Wade? Because in 1992 there were 6!! (O’Connor, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, Souter with a very conservative Byron White), and yet how did Casey v. Planned Barrenhood turn out? Instead we got a lecture from O’Connor about how abortion is the vital backstop to America’s contraceptive mentality? Just what exactly does NRLC do to oppose contraception? How many votes are enough in the Senate? The R’s will never, ever have 60+, and how many Republican presidents have taken real, hard steps to end abortion in this country? In the final analysis, the Republican party at the national level has repeatedly shown itself willing to only nibble around the edges of abortion but never, ever put it at serious risk of being outlawed. Even if the R’s by some miracle had 65 seats in the Senate and a president in the White House they STILL would manage to screw it up)
“When you weigh everything on the scale, I don’t know how, when you’ve got the current Senate make-up, and you’ve got Obama in the White House, I don’t know how you can win [inaudible],” she stated.
So what can pro-lifers do in 2016? Tobias says they can vote. “Part of the problem in 2012 was that some people [said], ‘Oh, I don’t really like Mitt Romney, I don’t like his religion,'” said Tobias. “A lot of people didn’t vote. We have to make sure that doesn’t happen next time. It’s up to pro-lifers to make sure that every pro-life voter in the country knows what is at stake.”
……… But if pro-lifers decide that, for whatever reason, they’re upset and they’re just gonna stay home, babies continue to die.”
I’m sorry, and excuse my language, but bullshit. Sure the Republicans are marginally better on pro-life at the national level, but only marginally so. Does anyone really think that if Romney – a total abortion squish, who has changed his position to whatever is convenient – had been elected, abortion would be under any more threat in this Year of our Lord 2015? No. We’d be hearing the same crap about how they’re aren’t enough votes in the Senate, the democrats will filibuster, we must wait till next election and see how we come out, but in the meantime, all you pro-lifers be good little obedient soldiers and keep donating to our cause and always keep voting Republican, and maybe one distant day in the future (but no promises!) we’ll put in a minor limitation on abortion.
I think a lot of pro-lifers have been hearing this same line for decades and we’re sick of it. The Republican party leadership takes pro-life votes for granted and isn’t even slightly interested in seeing our vital concerns realized. And NRLC and many other groups are so institutionalized that they are basically inseparable from the Republican party apparatus.
Here’s the reality – in spite of the billions donated to national pro-life groups, in spite of decades of pro-lifers dutifully voting for the Republican party, the United States today remains one of the most free-wheeling abortion landscapes in the world. We are one of only six nations to allow abortion to six months gestation, nominally, but let’s be real, we all know there are thousands of doctors all too happy to declare a “threat” to the mother’s health for specious reasons, so that abortion is in reality legal to 42 weeks and beyond. We see in the Planned Barrenhood videos that partial birth abortion still goes on on a wide scale, and does anyone think a single soul at Planned Barrenhood will be indicted under the federal ban?
I’ll just sum up again, bluntly: if the Republican party had all 9 Supreme Court justices, a “pro-life” President, 65 seats in the Senate and 280 in the House, does anyone think Roe v. Wade would be overturned/outlawed? Would abortion be made illegal? I don’t. I don’t believe that because I don’t believe the Republican party leadership wants abortion to go away, too many of even the “pro-life” ones aren’t, and, even more, the Republicans NEED abortion to remain as a vital motivator for much of their base. Even a 20 week limit would only be a probability under those circumstances, not assured. If you think I go too far, look at the historical track record, people.
Bah, maybe I’ve gotten too cynical, but having followed these matters closely for years my view of the Republican party on abortion has grown exceedingly pessimistic.
add a comment
This almost reads like a joke. So German Cancellor Angela Merkel was in New York to attend some UN function. She wound up at a table with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. She lamented to him the hostility expressed on social media to her immigration policy, especially given that Germany has taken in over 800,000 “refugees” this year alone. She was not happy with this wrong kind of self-expression, and demanded action. The CEO was only too happy to oblige:
On the sidelines of a United Nations luncheon on Saturday, Merkel was caught on a hot mic pressing Zuckerberg about social media posts about the wave of Syrian refugees entering Germany, the publication reported.
The Facebook CEO was overheard responding that “we need to do some work” on curtailing anti-immigrant posts about the refugee crisis. “Are you working on this?” Merkel asked in English, to which Zuckerberg replied in the affirmative before the transmission was disrupted.
There’s two standards folks: one for those who hold the “right” opinions, those who hold great leverage in society, and one for the rest of us. The internet, while also being a serious source of disinformation, has also been a thorn in the side of the powers that be. As the global consensus towards authoritarianism grows, don’t be surprised to see quite concrete moves to start blocking free speech on the internet. We can expect comments on various fora not to show, we can expect being banned from various sites, we can even expect being outed as various forms of hate monger. All in the service of “equality” and “non-discrimination.” It’s amazing how many other rights, even ones heretofore so sacrosanct (when they were an effective tool of the Revolution), are willingly sacrificed on the altar of expediency once their usefulness is at an end.
OR……it could just be a corrupt politician with a really bad policy seeking aid and cover from the media. But notice they rarely go to such lengths over things as prosaic as tax policy…..it’s only on the cultural issues that they seek to silence dissent, because culture trumps all.
Is the report that the world financial system force PBXVI’s abdication real, or hyperbole? October 1, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, Papa, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
I instantly saw the report come out on Tuesday from a French source alleging that the evil American globalist financial power had somehow forced Pope Benedict XVI’s abdication by freezing assets at the Vatican bank. Here is the report below, translated by Google:
“Few know what SWIFT (the acronym stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) is: in theory, is a global “clearing house”, uniting 10,500 banks in 215 countries. In fact, is the most occult and sole center of American-globalist financial power, a bastion of blackmail on which the hegemony of the dollar, the most powerful means of political and economic espionage (to the detriment especially for us Europeans) and the means by which the most feared global finance breaks the legs of states that do not obey. …
“‘When a bank or territory is excluded from the system, as it did in the case of the Vatican in the days before the resignation of Benedict XVI in February 2013, all transactions are blocked. Without waiting for the election of Pope Bergoglio, the Swift system has been unlocked the announcement of the resignation of Benedict XVI.
“‘There was a blackmail come from who knows where, through SWIFT, exercised on Benedict XVI. The underlying reasons for this story have not been clarified, but it is clear that SWIFT has intervened directly in the management of affairs of the Church.’
“This explains and justifies the unprecedented resignation of Ratzinger, that many of us have been able to exchange for an act of cowardice; the Church was treated as a state ‘terrorist’, but worse — because note that the dozen banks falling into the hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria ‘are not excluded from SWIFT’ and continue to be able to make international transactions — and the Vatican finances could no longer pay the nunciature, to convey transport missions — in fact, the same ATM of Vatican City had been blocked.
The Church of Benedict could not ‘neither sell nor buy’; its own economic life was counted in hours.”
So my initial inclination was to think this was all a bit histrionic, especially the typically European hyperbole over (often European-dominated) international institutions like SWIFT and of course the cruel hand of the American Dollar.
HOWEVER, I started looking through some dates on these matters, and things lined up shockingly well. The Vatican Bank lost access to all electronic monetary transfers on Jan. 1, 2013, ostensibly due to failure to implement Euro-mandated reforms regarding protections against money laundering. For years, PBXVI had been trying to reform the Vatican Bank, or “IOR,” without total success. As 2012 melted into 2013, his reform process came to a standstill with the forcing out of IOR head Gotto Tedeschi, the man hand-picked by Benedict to reform the bank. Tedeschi seems to have been nothing but a fall guy, facing a number of false allegations after his dismissal and beating them all in court (even Italian court, which is really saying something). It appears his force out was part of the broader struggle to undermine and foil every attempt PBXVI made at reform at every level. Tedeschi was simply an early casualty in the war against Pope Benedict and Cardinal Bertone.
SO, the day after Pope Benedict announces his abdication, voila!, the ban on electronic monetary transfers/credit card transactions is suddenly lifted! That seems an enormous coincidence, but who am I to judge?
Anyway, I see Louie Verrecchio has written a long piece on this subject with far more detail than I can give, so if you really want to dig deep into it, you can read his post. I really tend to think the Vatileaks scandal, the 300 page dossier on sodomite clergy in the Diocese of Rome/Vatican (how quickly that has been forgotten), and the constant machinations of the modernist cardinals like Daneels, Kasper, McCarrick, et. al., were probably more significant factors, but this may have been the icing on the cake to convince Pope Benedict to realize that his pontificate was being ground to a halt, with ongoing damage to the Church (though not so much damage as since!). I still think there is a missing link, which Rorate Caeli has referred to, regarding a certain turncoat cardinal, ostensibly an ally/protege of Benedict, who convinced him that abdication was a safe course as a friendly, like-minded successor was assured.
I do think the many revelations we’ve seen in the past 12-18 months do make clear (to this writer, anyway) that Pope Benedict abdicated under duress. That is to say, the stated reason (health) was perhaps only one part of a very complex picture, featuring attacks on his pontificate from every possible angle.
EXPLOSIVE REVELATIONS! SYNOD A SHAM! SECRET CABAL MEETING DRAFTING RADICAL LIBERTINE NEW “DOCTRINE.” POPE BEHIND ALL. October 1, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Papa, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
Well folks, it seems the dread day has finally arrived. It is being widely reported that a secret parallel synod comprising Jesuits and Argentines has been stood up to draft the post-synodal documents that will implement whatever Pope Francis and his sponsors, like the immoral Cardinal Daneels and the radical episcopalian Cardinal Kasper, want. Marco Tossati reports, along with more info from Edward Pentin. All below from Rorate Caeli:
Italian journalist Marco Tosatti reveals that A SECRET PARALLEL SYNOD has been established in Rome, a cabal composed almost exclusively by Jesuits, with the occasional Argentinian presence (easy to guess who), to draft the necessary post-synodal documents to implement whatever the Pope wants to implement. And they will implement it, no matter what, as the secret committee to draft the Annulment reforms has shown; what everyone supposed was true in fact is true: the Synodal process is a sham.
Because since, as Edward Pentin revealed in detail, the 2014 Synod was rigged, [and yet still did not quite achieve the desired result]the 2015 will be rigged beyond all measure, as Pentin himself reported on September 29 at the National Catholic Register, on procedural changes to be announced tomorrow (Friday) that will make any control over the outcome impossible by Synod Fathers who realize they are being cheated (as happened last year – the manipulators learned their lesson):At last year’s meeting, the interim document, properly called a relatio post-disceptationem, caused controversy after it was sent out to the media before the synod fathers had read it. Critics said the document lacked references to Scripture and tradition, and most controversially, appeared to imply the Church was considering giving tacit acceptance of same-sex relationships — an issue that was hardly discussed during the meeting’s first week. [The 2014 Synod was greatly manipulated by papal-appointees assigned to lead and govern the Synod, all in order to promote a modernist-progressive message as morally acceptable]The probable decision not to have an interim report may be an effort to avoid last year’s controversy from recurring. But some fear it will lead to less transparency, and worry the timing could be intentional in order to facilitate the advancement of controversial proposals as time runs out for discussion.…Another rumored change is that the rule on propositions having to pass by a two-thirds majority might be eliminated and a simple majority take its place.This would favor a controversial proposal, such as Cardinal Kasper’s, because his thesis only received a simple majority at the last synod……..Tosatti adds his own exclusive information, which is quite explosive, considering that the last time a secret papal commission met, what we got was the most authoritarian canon law reforms in the history of the Church, in violation of all understanding of the proper boundaries of papal power and establishing de facto Catholic divorce under the guise of easy acccess to “annulments”: [Because left-liberal paeans to “fairness” and “equality” and “democracy” are really just a pile of manure, nothing but cover for “I will.” I will that sodomites should be “regularized” in the Church, I will that adulterers receive the Blessed Sacrament, I will that Catholic divorce be permitted, etc. It’s the most authoritarian papacy of the past 200 years, if not a lot longer than that. We now see very clearly, as if we did not before, that “collegiality” and “dialogue” and all the other things are just means to their ends, when convenient, and instantly chucked overboard when they are not. A more faithful/traditional pope in future would do well to remember that.]
In this context [that is, of the procedural changes mentioned by Edward Pentin], news has arrived to us for about twelve days that around thirty people, almost all of them Jesuits, with the occasional Argentinian, are working on the themes on the Synod, in a very reserved way, under the coordinatin of Father Antonio Spadaro, the director of Civiltà Cattolica [the official journal of the Holy See], who spends a long time in Santa Marta, in consultation with the Pope.The discretion in the works extends also to the Jesuits of the same House, the villa of Civiltà Cattolica, Villa Malta, on the Pincio [Hill], where part of the work is done. One possibility is that the “task force” works to provide the Pope the instruments for an eventual post-synodal document on the theme of the Eucharist to the remarried divorced, on cohabiting [couples], and same-sex couples.
Patrick Archbold feels this revelation irrevocably nails the intent behind the Synod, which is not to canvass the opinions of a small subset of the world’s bishops, but to arrive at predetermined ideological conclusions, the very conclusions we’ve seen referenced by Cardinal Daneels, Cardinal McCarrick, and many others: a “modernized” church, “finishing the work of Vatican II,” and firmly and irrevocably instituting the modernist program into formal Church legislation:
They will get their way NO. MATTER. WHAT.
Because of their PR setbacks last year when their nefarious deeds became public, they are changing the rules. Just like the Pope circumvented all traditional process to implement his annulment reforms, they are changing all the rules of the synod this time around to keep that from happening again. The persistent rumors will likely become fact tomorrow after a press conference on the subject.
But that is just the beginning. Like the first time around when the tragic, horrible, and disgusting interim relatio was written before a single conversation, the fix is in…….
They will get their way and they are depending on the Pope to make it happen.
This is where we are now. Time to face it.
And there is nary a handful of Bishops standing up to this thuggery in any meaningful way.
There is NO resistance but us. None. Time we start acting like it.
I think a lot of us are trying. I’m not entirely certain what we do at this point.
I will say this: these guys are messing with primal supernatural forces. They may unleash something well beyond their expectation, and it may have shocking results. The only thing I know is, God will not be mocked. This will not stand. Even if it takes the black flag of Jihad flying over St. Peter’s, this will not stand.
May God have mercy on His Church. What terrible days we live in.
Various n’ Sundry: Dolan fails, Obama threatens, voting corruption abounds September 28, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
Just a few recent items of brief note:
Root of the matter? Cardinal Dolan can’t explain why Christianity is in free-fall in this country. Fr. Richard Heilmann advises Cardinal Dolan that perhaps the largest reason is the banality of the Mass and its reduction from glorious other-worldly act of transcendent beauty to “banal, on-the-spot product” is one major reason:
Those churches, religious orders, etc. who have fully embraced modernism (basically, a rejection of tradition and the sacred – see image on the right above), are emptying out at an alarming rate.
At the same time, there is an “awakening” going on in those churches that are staying true to the traditional and the sacred. “The Church is not meant to change with culture, but to be counter-cultural.”……
………..With all due respect, Cardinal Dolan (and all of the USCCB), this is really not rocket science. Once the decision was made to remove everything that points to the Glory of God, we are left with something banal and mundane and common. We are mere mortals … we need our eyes and, therefore, our hearts filled with visual reminders that “THIS IS GOD!” And, to be reminded, “THAT MEANS THIS IS A BIG DEAL!”
I think we can clearly see now that when it comes to the Liturgy Cardinal Dolan simply doesn’t get it. Of course, he’s shown that with his repeated affronts to the TLM generally and Fr. George Rutler in particular.
I don’t know where Fr. Heilmann found this pic but it’s horrific:
Next, just a few hours after his new BFF Pope Francis left the country, President Obama threw down the gauntlet to Christians, telling us in no uncertain terms that sodomy trumps Jesus Christ, in his perverse and addled mind:
As Pope Francis flew back to Rome, President Obama issued a stern warning to Christians, warning them their attempts to assert their religious liberty to oppose gay rights would fail.
“We affirm that we cherish our religious freedom and are profoundly respectful of religious traditions,” he insisted during a dramatic speech at a LGTB fundraiser in New York City on Sunday night, praising the progress made on gay rights under his administration. “But we also have to say clearly that our religious freedom doesn’t grant us the freedom to deny our fellow Americans their constitutional rights.”
That’s funny, because Obama sure doesn’t seem to have much problem denying the constitutional rights of millions of American gun owners, or at least trying to do so at every opportunity.
They could not be more clear: your religion means nothing to them, while their religion of satanic leftism means everything to them. They are determined that their religion will win out.
Of course, our Pope did not exactly cover himself in glory on this matter of persecution of Christians in this country, but he did at least bring the subject up, unlike a certain Holy Name that should be on the lips of Christians every possible minute.
Final note: it has been claimed that 141 American counties have more registered voters than living souls. But democracy rocks, and voter ID is just a cruelly repressive denial of the right of millions of dead and non-existent people to vote. America!
The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) has put 141 counties on notice across the United States that they have more registered voters than people alive. PILF has sent 141 statutory notice letters to county election officials in 21 states. The letters are a prerequisite to bringing a lawsuit against those counties under Section 8 of the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
The letters inform the target counties that it appears they are violating the NVRA because they are not properly maintaining the voter rolls. The NVRA (also known as Motor Voter) requires state and local election officials to properly maintain voter rolls and ensure that only eligible voters are registered to vote. Having more registrants than eligible citizens alive indicates that election officials have failed to properly maintain voter rolls……..
……….“Corrupted voter rolls provide the perfect environment for voter fraud,” said J. Christian Adams, President and General Counsel of PILF. “Close elections tainted by voter fraud turned control of the United States Senate in 2009. Too much is at stake in 2016 to allow that to happen again.” [And decided the 1960 (certainly) and 2012 (possibly) elections]
Well there’s always too much at stake, we hear that every election. Having said that, I think “democracy” without some kind of property/knowledge/stakeholding requirement to vote is little more than a particularly prolonged method of national suicide. Once everyone with a pulse can vote, those with the least stake in a society can vote for themselves all manner of benefits from those with the greatest involvement. I think our voting base has revealed itself to be grossly ignorant of the issues at hand and easily manipulated. I’m all for trying something else (the notion that democratic government is responsible to the will of at least this particular people long ago having become something of a joke).
I was right all along – USAF desperately short of F-22s September 28, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, Flightline Friday, foolishness, It's all about the $$$, non squitur, rank stupidity, silliness, Society, technology.
Long early Flightline Friday below. This was such a personal issue for me I simply couldn’t pass it up. I recognize many readers won’t agree with my POV below, preferring a US with little or no military capability.
Way back in 1999, a California Congressman (Democrat, go figure) started an effort to cancel the F-22 program. The effort did not succeed, but given that this effort had begun even before the first full-scale development prototype had flown, it was not a welcome development. As a result of this funding threat, the planned number of F-35s was cut to 339 from 448. Even back then, I argued vociferously (to the few who would listen) that it
was not the F-22 that should be cancelled, but the then Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), which has become the incredibly expensive and dubiously capable F-35. I was very passionate about this before my conversion, noting that the JSF, which hadn’t even seen any hardware produced (the initial flyoff competition was still 2 years away), was too much a jack of all trades and seemed like a repeat of the disastrous F-111 program of the 60s. History has born my arguments out. I pushed as hard as I could (but having almost no influence) to see the F-22 buy reinstated to the full 648 airframes, the JSF cancelled outright, and numbers made up with vastly improved F-16s (plus an additional 160 F-15Es, enough for two more wings). The F-16s would have been very much like the F-16E/F produced for the UAE, except with a much larger wing to restore performance with the increased weight. Engine would be the F110-GE-132, a 32,000 lbst version of the then-current F-16 powerplant. With the 50% larger “agile wing,” conformal fuel tanks, AESA radar, and other advanced sensors the F-16G/H would have been the perfect compliment for a very large F-22 force. The F-22 force would be the “kick in the door,” first day of the war force used to beat down enemy defenses, after which large numbers of F-16s (along with F-15Es) would be free to perform ground attack with F-22s continuing in the air supremeacy and destruction of enemy air defenses (DEAD) missions. This would also, not incidentally, been about $200 billion cheaper than the planned F-35 development/production cost.
Alas, the opposite happened. Pure politician Robert Gates, the man who has destroyed the Boy Scouts, instead cancelled the F-22 prematurely and promised increased production of the eventual JSF, the F-35. But the F-35 is beset with all manner of problems, and even if it weren’t, is not 1/2 as capable as the F-22 in the critical air supremacy mission. With only 186 F-22, USAF is critically short of air superiority assets and in any battle with a near-peer competitor would be hard pressed to have enough assets. The F-15s are ancient and cannot serve much longer, so it looks like USAF will have a critical shortfall in air superiority aircraft for decades to come (the F-35 simply being incapable of that mission, it’s a bomb truck).
Others have started observing what I’ve been saying for almost 20 years.
We didn’t build nearly enough F-22s, and the F-35 cannot simply pick up the slack. So why aren’t those who pushed so hard to cancel the F-22 program being held accountable? [It was an entirely political decision, driving in large part by civilian policy-makers being exceedingly ignorant of the differing roles and missions of the F-22 and F-35. While USAF fought as hard for the F-22 as any program I can recall, with both the SECAF and CoS falling on their swords to try to save the program, USAF fighter mafia does share a bit of blame for the F-22’s cancellation by insisting that the F-35 be called a fighter. It’s not, it’s a stealthy marginally supersonic attack aircraft, and should be the A-14, not the F-35. To policy makers, a fighter is a fighter is a fighter, so why buy two? That was a key tactical error that had huge repercussions later on]
By the mid 2000s, the F-22 was finally entering the fray as the world’s first true stealth fighter, offering a quantum leap in capability and performance when compared with anything else on the battlefield. [And that same quantum leap remains today, but no matter how capable, 50 F-22s cannot shoot down 500 Su-27s] It was a thoroughbred weapon system meant to shape the battlefield by vanquishing anything in the skies and neutering enemy air defenses, so that less capable combat aircraft could survive over the battle space. It was a high-end door kicker, the ultimate “anti-access” fighter.
At the same time that the Raptor was coming online and proving itself,Defense Secretary Robert Gates, of both the Bush and Obama Administrations, was calling for the F-22’s demise. This was said to be due to the aircraft cost and use as “only” an air-to-air, destruction of enemy air defense, and deep strike platform. [There was more to it than that. Gates waged an existential struggle against USAF demanding total focus on the “War on Terror,” to the point of completely sacrificing future capability against the high-end threat. Bush 43’s defense policy was disastrous on many fronts, mostly due to his appointing two disastrous SECDEFs, Gates and Rumsfeld.]
Gates’s push for the Raptor’s demise came at the same time as the cost of examples of the jet were rapidly dropping. For the last batch of 60 of the super-fighters, the unit cost per jet was $137 million, which is pretty close to the cost of an “affordable” F-35A today – at a time when a similar number of F-35s have been built as F-22s, about 165 compared to the F-22’s 187. [I always felt the F-35 would be no cheaper than the F-22. So far, I’ve been absolutely right]
Costs were slated to have continued to drop if another lot of about 53 jets were built to meet the Air Force’s stated minimum fleet size requirement of 243 airframes. But it never happened.
Instead the F-22 was cast off and all of the USAF’s fighter chips were put into the very much unproven F-35 bucket. Gates justified chopping the F-22 as he wanted aircraft to “fight the wars we are in today, and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years ahead.” [It was an article of faith among the political elite in this country until about the last 18 months that we’d never fight anything but brushfire, COIN type wars against low-tech savages. Today such faith looks as risible as it always was] Considering air superiority and destruction of enemy air defenses is an absolute must for any conflict (aside for ones with totally permissible airspace), this was a very near-sighted evaluation, and as it turns out, prediction of the future.
To sustain U.S. air superiority, I am committed to building a fifth generation tactical fighter capability that can be produced in quantity at sustainable cost. Therefore I will recommend increasing the buy of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
A misleading statement if there ever was one, as it’s impossible to build something in quantity at a sustainable cost when you’re not willing to build it in great enough numbers so that a sustainable cost is achievable. It’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario, but at some point, the costs eventually balance out.
For the F-22, that point was rapidly approaching.
The F-22 was by many accounts on the verge of a cost breakthrough that would have sent its unit cost plunging well below the $100 million line. Gates later said:
We have fulfilled the program. It’s not like we’re killing the F-22. We will have 187 of them… The military advice that I got was that there is no military requirement for numbers of F-22 beyond 187.
Considering that the minimum the Air Force said they could operate with was 243, this statement seems less than true. And that number was last ditch compromise, the real bottom-line fleet size the USAF required of the F-22 was around 339 jets, which itself was dropped drastically from the original number of around 750 jets originally envisioned. At 339 examples it was hoped that the F-15C/D force could have been retired. [What was really hoped was that a long term program that yielded 340 airframes would have enough Congressional support and momentum to yield ~100 more to build the minimum fleet really needed. Just as USAF only programmed 180 C-17s but really wanted (and got) 230 through Congressional add-ons, the F-22 could have done the same – especially if there had been no F-35 to compete with it]
Yet Gates was not alone in the push to cancel the F-22. The Bush administration was guilty of it too, although they were able to punt the final decision to the Obama administration, who demanded it be cancelled with a sharp veto threat.
Key Congressional figures like Senator John McCain also wanted the Raptor line shutdown. Their justifications ranged from the program’s expense, which was largely sunk costs for research and development over the aircraft’s 30-year gestation period, to statements proclaiming that China would not unveil a stealth fighter until late in the next decade, with no chance of it being operational until the mid to late 2020s. Today, China has two stealth fighters flying, the first one, the J-20, getting airborne well before the last F-22 even left the production floor. The timing of the J-20’s first flight also occurred while Secretary Gates was in Beijing meeting with top-level government officials. The event was a well planned propaganda affair that aimed to make Gates look bad for underestimating Chinese technological capabilities.
For F-22 supporters it was an unwanted vindication.
Another common argument against the F-22 was that the idea of America meeting Russian, or any near-peer state fighter aircraft, head-on in battle was a relic of the Cold War, and had no place in 21st century. Because of this, less potent, multi-role platforms were more of a necessity. Fast forward a half decade, and that statement is far from accurate. In fact, theF-22 just made its first deployment to Europe as part of a security package to deter Russian aggression and to reassure our NATO allies. The F-22 has also been regarded as a force multiplier in the air war against ISIS, itself attacking many targets with great precision from the first night of air strikes in Syria on.
Back in the Gates years, naysayers, like embattled Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Mosley and Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wayne, both supporters of the F-22, were gotten rid of. Mosley has since reiterated his frustration with the F-22 decision, stating that the shutdown of the F-22 program “will prove to be one of the most strategically dislocated decisions made over the last 20 to 25 years.”
He also said that follow-on batches of F-22s were quoted as costing well below $90 million per copy fly-away cost, which is about 25 percent less than the cost of an F-35A today. [The F-35 might – might – decrease in cost once production ramps up BUT at the same time a lot of capability is still to be worked in, which will push airframe cost back up. I expect the average flyaway cost for the F-35 over its lifetime will exceed $125 million per]
Nowadays it seems that everyone laments the premature F-22 line shutdown, from late-to-the-scene defense commentators to those at the very top of the USAF, including Air Combat Command chief Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle, whoe was quoted in National Defense Magazine as saying:
“We don’t have enough F-22s, that’s a fact of life. We didn’t buy enough; we don’t have enough.” However, the Air Force is going to make do with the Raptors it does have, Carlisle said. “You’re going to need the Raptors” for a high-end fight, he said. “So you’re still going to have to do that and we’re going to do it with the 180 or so F-22s we have.”
Because only 187 F-22s were built, with only about 125 of the jets setup for assignment to combat units at any given time, even fullfilling small detachments of F-22s to the Pacific, Middle East and European theater may be troublesome. As such, the F-15C/D force, which less than a decade ago was suffering from mid-air breakups resulting in a year-long grounding, has had to stay online to supplement the relatively tiny F-22 force.
With all this in mind, if we built enough F-22s to eradicate the enemy’s defenses, both in the air and on the ground, and improved the aircraft over time, perhaps even stretching it into an FB-22 with F-35 like avionics, would the USAF need an F-35A at all? [With enough F-22s, the F-35 was superfluous. It was the Marines in particular, with their enormous (this cannot be understated) Congressional clout, who drove the JSF/F-35 program to success in their demand for a Harrier replacement. The Navy has always been tepid towards F-35 and would frankly prefer a bunch more Super Hornets. USAF hasn’t helped itself in its F-35 support, either. Lockheed and the supply base generally supported seeing the F-35 win out since it meant hundreds of billions in extra funding for them]
Instead, the force could be filled in by other high-end capabilities currently in the works, like a new long-range stealth bomber, stealthy standoff weapons and unmanned combat air vehicles. On the low-end side of the equation, plentiful, relatively cheap and proven platforms, like the F-16 and A-10, among others, could be available once air dominance has been achieved, or for lower-end conflicts that do not require the F-22’s high-end anti-access capabilities.
What makes things worse is that the floundering F-35 program has sucked funds for much needed upgrades on existing systems, including the F-22. In fact the F-22 lacks relatively standard technologies found on all of America’s fighter fleet, thus needlessly handicapping America’s “tip of the spear” fighter.
So what exactly happened here? If we clearly do not have enough F-22s today and it seemed nobody really thought we had enough at the time of its cancellation, aside from those with the power to kill the program, and the jet was passed over for the F-35, an aircraft that the USAF itself admits cannot fill the high-end role like the F-22, somewhere along the line disinformation was passed along to decision makers, or worse. So why don’t we pull those key decision makers in and have them explain exactly how they understood the situation at the time, what information and intelligence were they going off of, and who gave them that information and when?
It wasn’t disinformation. It was a dogmatic policy decision. One or the other had to go. That was the command from on high. The F-35 was vitally necessary to the Marines, so it was the chosen son. End of story.
Totally not unrelated. I mentioned the 50 F-22 vs. 500 Su-27 (a top end Russian aircraft) scenario above. This has been gamed out repeatedly in simulations and war games. The war games show the US repeatedly fails to gain air superiority in a conflict with China. There simply aren’t enough missiles on the aircraft to go around. Yes, the F-22s and a few F-15s shoot down 200 Chinese aircraft per sortie, but they are then destroyed on the ground when the land to refuel and rearm. The People’s Liberation Army Air Force is gutted, but so is the USAF/USN. One way to solve this problem is to hang more missiles on more aircraft. Boeing comes to the rescue with a plan for F-15s armed with 16 AMRAAMs. Probably there will be no money for this, though:
Bill Nye the leftist baby-killer guy September 28, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, asshatery, Basics, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, rank stupidity, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer. So he has the exact same credentials I have to comment on scientific matters. The only thing is, science is to him a god-like construct that demands total submission and brooks no dissent. At least, that’s certainly how he presents the sacred shibboleth of “climate change.” But it’s not the only shibboleth Nye holds. He also believes abortion is just a wonderful, unquestionable good, and should be available from conception to birth (and since he supports partial-birth abortion, he probably extends “abortion rights” to some point after birth). In fact, Nye is a profoundly religious man, it’s just that his religion is satanic progressivism of the scientism cult, and as such is irretrievably hostile to Christianity.
At any rate, with the same pedantic condescension that riddled is PBS program for kids (and made it root-canal-without-anesthetic painful to watch), Nye is now lecturing to all us scientific illiterates why abortion is perfectly justified and how stupid and hypocritical we are to oppose the wanton slaughter of perfect innocents:
This week Bill Nye took to YouTube channel Big Think to make a statistical argument in favor of unrestricted abortion……..
For those keeping score, the biological argument in favor of unrestricted abortion, advanced by ethicist Peter Singer and predicated on the idea of autonomy, led to the barbaric conclusion that infanticide is ethical, and sometimes even desirable. Nye’s argument from statistics sets an arbitrary timeline for what constitutes a worthwhile lifespan, leading to the conclusion that human existence has no value because we are all going to die anyway. [and the satanically evil Singer (along with other “ethicists”) have now concluded that “abortion” can and should be extended well past birth, and up to age 5 or some arbitrary point. Once again, the left, supposedly everyman’s friend, reveals their inherent misanthropy and their desire for the god-like power to determine whose lives are worth living. Find your 4 year old inconvenient and not so much fun – well Singer and others are perfectly happy to justify your murdering him. There is absolutely ZERO moral difference between what Singer, and by extension Nye, advocate, and what the Nazis and Stalinists did.]
Bill Nye’s arguments for opposing legislation that would restrict abortion:
-A large number of humans in the blastocyst stage of development fail to implant in the uterus and subsequently die.
-If we respect the dignity of blastocyst humans, it follows that we need to imprison men and women whose babies fail to implant.
[No, it doesn’t. The error expressed here is the typical leftist confusion of means with ends. Because a baby accidentally fails to implant of its own, as an act of God, or whatever, is strictly that, an accident. There is a monumental difference in morality between allowing actions that frustrate implantation, or that kill a baby after implantation, and it simply happening on its own. One is the result of a deliberate, immoral act, the other is simply happenstance. There is a moral gulf between the two that one would hope even a leftist scientician would recognize, but apparently not. Remember, this is the same man who would very happily see millions starve and freeze to death in the dark (provided he gets his, of course) due to mass energy shortage to avoid non-existent “global warming.”]
-The typical pro-life advocate is a man of European descent trying to tell women what to do.
[BS. Total argument from ignorance and “otherization” of those he hates. The day to day operation of the pro-life movement is DOMINATED by women. Go outside any mill at any time, go into any CPC, go into any CPLC, and you will find women out number men at least 3 or 4 to 1.]
-Pro-life laws are based on an interpretation of a book written 5000 years ago.
[WRONG. First of all, the New Testament is less than 2000 years old, but we also have the Didache and other ancient sources that point out the Church’s constant hatred of and total opposition to all forms of baby-killing from her inception. There is a clear moral line of argument going back to the foundation of the Church. What Nye is really saying is: “shut up, bible-humper”]
-Pro-life advocates believe that every act of sexual intercourse should result in a baby. Legislation to restrict abortion is based on this unscientific belief.
[Not should, bonehead, could. Another confusion of means and ends. We realize the foundational immorality of frustrating the natural fecundity of the marital act. Nye tries to turn this into one of the pro-aborts most ridiculous arguments, “pro-lifers think every instance of the marital act must lead to pregnancy.” Please. Are they really that dumb? No, they’re just that blinded by ideology and possessed of a reprobate sense.]
–You can’t tell someone else what to do.
[THIS. This is the entire argument, period, full stop. You can’t tell me what to do. But would Nye grant the same argument with regard to carbon emissions or some other dogmatic belief he holds?]
-Abortion is needed because a woman might not like the man who impregnated her and might not want anything to do with his genes, especially if she has been raped.
[Fail. Argument from extremity. Rape/incest constitute less than 2%, and quite probably less than 1%, of all abortions in the US. Why on earth is a woman fornicating with a man if she wants nothing to do with his “genes.” See argument above, that’s what all of this gets back to (don’t tell me what to do).
-There are more important issues than abortion.
[On what other topic that had resulted in the intentional killing of 1.5-2 billion souls would leftists say “there are more important topics?” They tell us we must stop “global warming” because it could, maybe, someday, hundreds of years from now, lead to mass calamities and huge numbers of death. Well, Bill Nye leftist guy, there are millions of deaths annually from abortion every year. Who are you to say that their lives are any less valid or important than those who might, someday, maybe (but almost certainly not) be wiped out by global warming?]
-Science has taught us a lot about life before birth. Pro-life advocates are not scientists and do not know what happens after an egg is fertilized.
[We know that a unique human life has been created, and that is something you cannot deny, Mr. Science Guy. That person is endowed with all the potential and value that you arrogate to yourself, Mr. Nye. Simply because it has not escaped the womb does not mean that it is worthless and free to be destroyed. I’m sure Nye would agree he’s quite happy HIS mother did not make this “choice.”]
-Teaching abstinence is ineffective. Closing abortion clinics and not giving women access to birth control will not lead to a healthy society.
[And killing babies does? Again we see leftist materialism and argument from expediency. Leftists truly believe many lives are not worth living (especially if they fail to include tony condos in hip neighborhoods, chic cars, arugula salad lunches, and other such high tastes). Their materialism drives them to conclude that those without a certain standard of living are better off dead. This is satanic. The simple fact of the matter is that “teaching abstinence” worked exceedingly well for centuries to keep the bastard birth rate very low. It was only with the left’s march through the institutions that the entire moral order, including abstinence, began to fail. So Nye is decrying the failure of something he is deeply committed to destroying, anyway.]
The video below is titled “Can we stop telling women what to do with their bodies?” Certainly, I’m all for it. Provided what they do with their bodies doesn’t involve the destruction of someone else’s body, 50% of which are women, by the way (so by allowing a privileged subset of women to “control their bodies” ALL choice has thus been denied to 750 million – 1 billion other women killed by abortion).
Notice he also avoids sex-selective abortion, which is horrifically skewing the population balance in India, China, and other countries. There are so many contradictions, logical fallacies, and points of general illogic in the diatribe below that it’s laughable. And yes, Mr. Nye, I’m actually MORE qualified than you to speak on science, unlike you I haven’t left science for entertainment decades ago, I continue to be a practicing engineer, and I didn’t get my master’s because I didn’t bother with the thesis, but I retain the knowledge from the coursework. There are thousands of PhDs in scientific disciplines who would be horrified by your exhibition below, both for its logical incoherency and its scientific illiteracy. Your argument from expertise thus fails, too:
Was Nye always such a maroon, or has decades of inculcation in the leftist media-entertainment industrial complex rotted his mind?
Big Shock – Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has voted in favor of Planned Butcherhood repeatedly September 25, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, Basics, contraception, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
Even with the announcement of John Boehner’s resignation from the House today (Ohio officials have issued a flood warning for the Ohio River once Boehner returns, his tears likely to lead to a serious overflow), the grave problems with the GOPe roper leadership remain. A record of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s pro-abort votes in favor of Planned Murderhood have been revealed, and they point to a typical pro-abort liberal elitist who has somehow been allowed to masquerade as a conservativish Repubnik for decades. Don’t think the positive scores given by National Right to Life and other groups played little or no part in that masquerade. They were central to it:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wants you to think he opposes the effort to defund Planned Parenthood in the continuing resolution (CR) because it could cause a government shutdown.
He also wants you to think it’s because he doesn’t have 60 votes in the Senate when in fact it only takes 41 votes to filibuster funding for the organization. [But my goodness, think of the 2016 election! It’s an election year! But it’s always an election year! If off-years like 2015 constitute “election years,” they must never end, eh? And what is losing a few seats in the House or Senate (which seats haven’t been worth very much to Christians, anyway), compared to the slaughter and sale of hundreds of thousands of perfectly innocent children? Who thinks like that?]
But the real reason he won’t fight is that he doesn’t really care about stopping funding for Planned Parenthood, and he never has.
Here are the facts that he doesn’t want you to know:
(1) In 1992, McConnell voted to allow taxpayer-funded research using body parts from aborted babies.
This policy, which was vetoed by President George H. W. Bush but later signed into law by President Bill Clinton, had the effect of making abortion even more profitable for Planned Parenthood.
(2) Also in 1992, McConnell voted to overturn the so-called “Reagan Rule” that prohibited Planned Parenthood from using taxpayer dollars for pro-abortion counseling.
McConnell’s vote in this case was to override President Bush’s veto, but the House sustained it. Then, in 1993, President Clinton overturned the “Reagan Rule” by Executive Order on the first day of his administration.
(3) In 1997, McConnell again voted against a targeted ban on federal funding for research on body parts from abortions.
This time, McConnell was one of 14 liberal Republicans who voted to allow taxpayer-funded research on body parts from abortions.
In the these three examples, McConnell crossed the then-current Republican president and many of his Republican colleagues in the Senate to open the door for taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood and for research on body parts from aborted babies.
(4) McConnell has voted for at least 15 bills that provided funding for Planned Parenthood dating back to 1998.
This is important because it shows how long Senator McConnell has tolerated this funding and refused to do anything meaningful to stop it.
Senator McConnell says defunding Planned Parenthood has to wait until Republicans control the White House, but at least five of his past votes to fund it were when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House. [This is the key. It’s always next year, next year, a few more seats, a few more billion dollars, meanwhile, the pile of murdered babies reaches Everest-like proportions. The point is, next year will never, ever come. Even if the R’s in the Senate had 65 seats and Zombie Reagan in the White House, they still would find a way to fail and keep abortion just as accessible and cheap and easy as it is today: that’s because they want it to be!!! How else do they take care of their “little accidents” with female staffers and DC call girls?]
Here’s the bottom line:
Senator McConnell isn’t 100% pro-life. He has repeatedly voted to force American taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood, its pro-abortion counseling, and research on the babies it aborts.
As if you needed more reasons to deplore this man. I assume readers were aware his pro-life credentials were, ahem, slightly suspect, but I’d say now they are pretty well blown to smithereens.
Sorry folks, perhaps 6 or 8 senators and perhaps 50 representatives aside, the R’s are worthless.
STUNNING ADMISSION: Hyper-Progressive Cardinal Danneels Admits Being in Mafia Dedicated to Unseat PBXVI September 25, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, Papa, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
Pride goeth before the fall. The modernists are apparently feeling very powerful and secure, because they are starting to open their mouths and crow about both their opposition to Pope Benedict XVI, dropping hints they played a role in his abdication, as well as quite possibly illicitly organizing to elect Pope Francis.
Further serious concerns are being raised about Cardinal Godfried Danneels, one of the papal delegates chosen to attend the upcoming Ordinary Synod on the Family, after the archbishop emeritus of Brussels confessed this week to being part of a radical “mafia” reformist group opposed to Benedict XVI.
It was also revealed this week that he once wrote a letter to the Belgium government favoring same-sex “marriage” legislation because it ended discrimination against LGBT groups.
The cardinal is already known for having once advised the king of Belgium to sign an abortion law in 1990, for telling a victim of clerical sex abuse to keep quiet, and for refusing to forbid pornographic, “educational” materials being used in Belgian Catholic schools.
He also once said same-sex “marriage” was a “positive development,” although he has sought to distinguish such a union from the Church’s understanding of marriage.
……..At the launch of the book in Brussels this week, the cardinal said he was part of a secret club of cardinals opposed to Pope Benedict XVI.
He called it a “mafia” club that bore the name of St. Gallen. The group wanted a drastic reform of the Church, to make it “much more modern”, and for Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio to head it. The group, which also comprised Cardinal Walter Kasper and the late Jesuit Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, has been documented in Austen Ivereigh’s biography of Pope Francis, The Great Reformer.
The plain implication is that these men were probably driving forces behind the Vatileaks and other difficulties that plagued PBXVI’s pontificate, helping convince the beleaguered Pope Emeritus that abdication was his best alternative. Of course, there have also been dark hints of a turncoat “disciple” of Ratzinger that played a key role in convincing him to abdicate, promising him that someone of a like mind would be elected and bring the constant stream of scandals afflicting the Vatican to an end. Who that turncoat is has not been revealed to date.
Nevertheless, this second admission, coupled with admissions made in the book alluded to in Pentin’s post above (The Great Reformer), seems to point to at least a reasonable possibility that there was illegal collusion between various cardinals at the conclave of 2013. Of course, Pope John Paul II had made such collusion an excommunicable offense and evidence of such would cast a huge shadow of doubt on the validity of the conclave itself. We’re very far from having anywhere near enough evidence to question that validity at present, but there is perhaps enough evidence for some kind of formal investigation by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to begin. Not that anyone expects that to happen, but who knows. We are told God is a God of surprises, and this would be quite a big one.
Danneels is a thoroughly repulsive character, the very model of the progressive-modernist post-conciliar prelate. Beloved by the media and Eurozone political types for his modernist stands, it appears only his powerful political connections kept him from being charged in the cover up of repeated boy rape. He played a decisive role in covering up the repeated sodomizing of young boys by his protege Roger Vangheluwe. It is hardly surprising that such a creature would oppose Pope Benedict XVI, and not much of a stretch to believe that he would have no scruples about violating Church Law to assure a successor more amenable to his disastrously modernist outlook.
I have a feeling this is a scandal that won’t go away anytime soon.