We are the drain the swamp people

No Mordecai Jones is he

• Others calling Obama’s attempt to sell the accord to the country a flimflam is an insult to the integrity of flimfammery
• It was a lie on the scale of “you can keep your doctor”

Donald Trump is not the only one to describe the Paris Climate Change Accord as a “bad deal” for the United States.

Objective observers, those few there are, could not possibly deny it!

But, how bad a deal was it…few American voters realized. This was not only a ‘bad deal’, this was a model of misrepresentation, duplicity, and treachery more blatant than any international “agreement”, probably in all of history (a final determination of ‘the worst’, however, must await close and honest analysis of the Iran Nuclear Agreement.)

So, how bad was it?:

– Naturally, not widely reported, the Paris Agreement was not intended to address “climate change”. It was an international ‘bait and switch’ swindle , primarily aimed at the United States taxpayer.

– As the N.Y. Post reported, in its story* on the Democrats’ “climate change debate” earlier this month:

“The preamble to the Paris Agreement alone tells you this is at heart a social engineering project, aimed at remaking the capitalist economies of the West.

“Signatories must “respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity.”

– 193 countries signed on to this “agreement**. The vast majority agreed to cut their carbon emissions…if they received $$cash$$ for doing so.

As examples, (Via Washington Times)

– Yemen has promised a whopping 1 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions as part of the global Paris climate agreement.

– North Korea, meanwhile, has said its pollution will double by 2030 compared with 2000 levels — but only if the rest of the world writes a sizable check. (Its pollution will thus increase more if it doesn’t get the check.)

– Peru says it can cut emissions by 30 percent by 2030 compared with its “business as usual” projections, though that would be a net pollution increase of 22 percent and is contingent on billions of dollars in funding.**

– …the vast majority of commitments offered in Paris would result in emissions increases or would require billions of dollars in funding… !!! At least $420 billion has been formally requested under countries’ submissions to the Paris agreement…!!!!!

– The U.S. vowed to cut its emissions at least 26 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels…AND to pay $3 billion in the first year of the pact for the privilege! (When the Obama administration finalized the agreement in December 2015, it committed $3 billion to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund, which is meant to help countries meet their targets.)

– Thanks to the generosity of Barack Obama, on behalf of US taxpayers, the US gave $1 billion before Trump came into office.

– U.N. officials estimated that it would cost at least $100 billion per year, and that figure could rise to more than $400 billion per year by 2020 to ensure compliance….and whom do you expect will be called upon to “share its vast wealth for this worthy project”, far more than any other nation, hmm?

– Some analysts say the final figure for worldwide compliance with the Paris pledges would be in the trillions of dollars. U.N. officials estimated that it would cost at least $100 billion per year, and that figure could rise to more than $400 billion per year by 2020 to ensure compliance.

************************

Washington Times:
– “…for many that remain in the accord, the demands for cash are fueling the argument that the Paris agreement, at its core, is as much about redistributing international wealth as it is about saving the planet from climate change.

Supporters of the deal routinely point out that 193 countries have signed on. Although that is technically true, the vast majority of commitments offered in Paris would result in emissions increases or would require billions of dollars in funding — or, in many cases, both.

“Claiming that 193 countries signed on is a meaningless statement, which is likely why it’s made. The meaningful way to view it is that 193 countries agreed that the U.S. should harm itself and to gladly pay on Tuesday for the U.S. to harm itself today,” said Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a leading critic of the Paris pact.” **

Biggest “surprise” reaction (not really) to President Trump pulling out of the “climate accord” comes from Open Borders advocate, anti-US, anti-capitalism, wealth redistributionist, Pope Francis, who “expressed dismay… at US president Donald Trump’s intention to withdraw from the Paris climate deal.”!

“Absent Senate ratification, Obama’s climate pledges to the United Nations are just administration proposals, not commitments of the United States”.  It is probably not necessary to remind readers that Obama bypassed the Senate in violation of the Constitution’s requirements that major treaties are subject to ratification by two-thirds vote of the U S Senate. In his uniquely “cute” style, Obama unilaterally ‘decided’ that the Paris Climate Accord wasn’t really a major international treaty…it was “just an agreement”…like the Chicago fire was intended to toast a few S’mores.

The unbelievably misleading nature of this agreement, the damage to the US economy and the burden it would have imposed on American taxpayers, and the manner in which it was intended to obligate the US, bypassing required Senate ratification, is an alarming reflection on the Obama administration.

We believe it raises legitimate questions about Barack Obama’s true intentions. Could he have possibly believed that this agreement was, in any way, negotiated in the best interests of America…and for that matter, the world?!

We say, “Of course not!” Barack Obama’s motives in this, as in many other things he did, appear to be much darker, and much more intentionally harmful to this country than most Americans believe.

DLH

(Note: If you already knew all of the above facts about the Paris Climate Accord, you are certainly a well-read “political junkie”. It is our contention that a lot of this information has not been widely disseminated by the liberal media. Consequently, we believe, that too many Americans are not aware of what an incredibly bad deal President Trump rescued our nation from.)

*https://nypost.com/2019/09/08/the-truth-about-democrats-climate-chamber/
**https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/5/paris-climate-agreement-shares-nations-wealth/

0

0

“Meme”orializing a few items of recent or ongoing import

Joe Biden has been telling a fake war story on the campaign trail for years

0

0

• Michelle Obama running n 2020 is the the great hope of many white liberals
• But would her running make any difference as to the outcome?

David Catron is a respected and well-informed writer for The Spectator, a “conservative” publication.

We are neither.

He has a different opinion regarding Michelle Obama running in 2020 — that she won’t (and why).

Nevertheless it has been our contention since the first 20 or so Democrats announced their aspiration to be the 46th president of the United States, that the Democratic Party would eventually come to the conclusion that none of them could inspire a majority of the electorate to vote for any one of them instead of Donald Trump, whether an electoral college still existed or not,

Thus, we have long opined that, at some point prior to the Democrat National convention next summer, the folks who run the Democratic Party, that would be the Mainstream Media, rich Hollywood nutcases, assorted socialists, communists, and anarchists, the faculties of most colleges in America, and certain unions (like the teachers’ and federal employees’), would realize that fact, and in terror and total arrogance, turn to their one true hero, er, heroine.

In their minds(?) who but ‘best selling’ authoress, the entire nation’s darling, Oprah’s pick, the person who hates America and its traditions, values, history, and philosophical underpinnings even more than they do or even “Barack the Great”, has already won the hearts of Americans, and would easily beat President Trump??

And, despite Mr. Catron’s and the views of many other Republicans and conservatives, it is our humble opinion that those folks would make their plaintive appeal to “Her Highness” and her vast ego would not permit her to reject her admirer’s fervent need and would consent to be America’s ruler!

Michele will graciously accept the Democratic nomination!

And, for only the second time in her adult life, Mrs. (Robinson) Obama would be proud of America!     DLH

Below is Catron’s article followed by three that indicate  her support is substantial and maybe compelling.

Why Michelle Obama Won’t Run in 2020

Trump would beat her badly.

The Democrats are clearly losing confidence that their declared presidential candidates can beat President Trump in 2020. They tout polls showing that any of their top four candidates would win the general election were it held now, but only the most naïve take such hypothetical matchups seriously. Moreover, they can see that their leading candidate is so fuddled that he frequently forgets his talking points and even where he is on a given day, while his competitors are so far left of the mainstream that Trump would trounce them. This is why so many on the left have turned their desperate eyes to Michelle Obama.

Over the weekend, Steve Lopez wrote a column in the Los Angeles Times titled, “Michelle Obama for president. The only one who can beat Trump?” Lopez suggests that many Democratic voters whose support for people like Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders is decidedly tepid might be far more motivated if Mrs. Obama would run. In early August, Michael Moore declared, “There is one person that would crush Trump and she hasn’t announced yet and her last name rhymes with Obama.” But the porcine provocateur almost certainly overestimates the former first lady’s prospects. Trump would probably defeat her.

There is a reason why, to further paraphrase Simon & Garfunkel, she has left and gone away. Michelle Obama may look around and see sympathetic eyes, but she learned something from the Clinton debacle that people like Lopez and Moore failed to grasp. Part of the reason she’s relatively popular is that she has betrayed no interest in climbing the greasy pole to public office. In the past, when she has insinuated herself into day-to-day politics, it hasn’t gone particularly well. Many voters still remember divisive comments like the following: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.”

When she made that bitter remark, she and her husband had already achieved breathtaking success. Should Mrs. Obama run for president, Donald Trump won’t hesitate to remind the voters that she still views the U.S. as a nation of racists, even after its voters ignored her husband’s color and elected him to its highest office. Trump would have plenty of ammunition, including one of the strangest interviews ever given by a President and First Lady. In December of 2014, they sat down with Sandra Sobieraj Westfall for a People interview during which Mrs. Obama described herself as a victim of racism:

I tell this story — I mean, even as the first lady — during that wonderfully publicized trip I took to Target, not highly disguised, the only person who came up to me in the store was a woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf. Because she didn’t see me as the first lady, she saw me as someone who could help her. Those kinds of things happen in life. So it isn’t anything new.

She is so solipsistic and splenetic that she reflexively assumed the request was an example of racism. Michelle Obama is nearly six feet tall. A much less paranoid explanation is that “the woman in the case” was unable to reach a high shelf. Would such a trivial event still be on the mind of any normal person years later? Michelle Obama carries around a large chip on her shoulder. During the interview she said, “I think people forget that we’ve lived in the White House for six years. Before that, Barack Obama was a black man that lived on the South Side of Chicago, who had his share of trouble catching cabs.”

This is hardly the upbeat, hopeful tone that characterized her husband’s first campaign. Another point Trump is likely to raise about a potential Michelle Obama presidency is what could be called “the Lurleen factor.” If you are now frowning at the screen, here’s the story: In 1966 Alabama governor George Wallace was unable to succeed himself pursuant to a provision of the state constitution. Wallace arranged to have his wife, Lurleen, run for the office and she won. Because Wallace made the decisions during his wife’s administration, he successfully circumvented a pesky constitutional provision.

President Trump and his campaign team can make a credible case that electing Michelle Obama to the presidency would likewise circumvent the 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by effectively reelecting Barack Obama to a third term. If Michelle Obama does run, Trump will inevitably ask the voters if they want to go back to the “new normal.” This question will be raised just as the results of the investigations into Obama administration skullduggery involving Russiagate are coming out. These probes will likely reveal facts that will render the voters less than anxious to see the Obamas return.

Mrs. Obama claims “there’s zero chance” that she will run. She clearly believes there is life after the White House, and has definite plans to “make a difference” in the future. Nonetheless, she insists that “sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office will never be one of them.” That sounds sensible, but there will continue to be calls for her to bail out the Democrats and save the country from President Trump. When the pressure mounts for her to run, she will take a look at the last candidate who was a sure bet to beat him — Hillary Clinton. Michelle Obama has a good life. It’s not likely that she wants to end up like that.

———

Doug Schoen in Sep 2017 (link)

It cannot be overstated how eagerly the Democrats want to take back the White House in 2020.

The Democrats face many obstacles in this effort, but the greatest threat is the fierce internal divisions within the party.

Two of the leading prospective presidential candidates, Sens. Kamala Harris(D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have begun national fundraising operations. Former Vice President Joe Biden has been busy building a national email list to communicate directly with his supporters, and Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) has already announced his presidential candidacy.

The Democratic Party does not just need a new leader, but a new policy agenda that is aimed at growing our economy, promoting traditional party values and doing more than resisting President Trump at every step.

Major Democratic donor Marc Lasry told The New York Times, “‘It’s gotten ridiculous,” and the Democrats “need a clearer message about what they want to do, not just about opposing Trump.”

As I’ve said before, the Democrats need an alternative plan to rebuild and unite the party if they have any hope in winning back seats in Congress in the 2018 midterms, nonetheless the White House in 2020. 

This alternative plan requires a new, united opposition, led by a political leader with widespread popularity.

The only person I can see accomplishing this would be none other than the party’s most popular political figure: Michelle Obama.

Let me be clear: This is not an endorsement. I have been, and still am, critical of Barack Obama’s presidency. Michelle Obama would not be my candidate, and I do not agree with many of the positions I believe she would advance. But as an analyst, Michelle Obama is clearly the Democrats’ best chance to reunite the party and win back the White House in 2020.

Michelle Obama is perceived as a strong, well-qualified leader with immense national popularity. Broadly, the polls show she is respected by the American people and by the near-entirety of the Democratic Party.

Although Michelle Obama has stated that she is not interested in a presidential bid, her appeal and support for her husband remain robust.

According to the January 2017 USA Today/Gallup poll, Michelle Obama left the White House with a 68 percent favorability rating, compared with 58 percent for President Obama and 61 percent for Vice President Biden. 

While it is common for first ladies to be more favored than their husbands, Michelle Obama’s favorability is substantially higher than Hillary Clinton’s rating of 56 percent from 2000 when she and President Clinton left the White House. 

Further, in plain terms, Michelle Obama would be a far superior candidate to Hillary Clinton. I opposed Hillary Clinton because she faced ethical issues that could very well have initiated a constitutional crisis had she been elected. Michelle Obama does not face such controversy.

Furthermore, Michelle Obama’s favorability rating is significantly greater than President Trump’s. According to the RealClear Politics Average, Trump’s latest favorability rating lies at 39.7 percent — a whopping 30 points less than Michelle Obama.

Just last month, Public Policy Polling found there to be “significant yearning for a return to the days of President Obama,” with 52 percent of voters saying they wish Barack Obama was still president, and only 39 percent preferring president Trump.

In fact, in a series of hypothetical match-ups between leading Democrats and President Trump, Barack Obama’s 52 percent represents the highest level of support, outnumbering Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren in particular.

—————–

A Washington Examiner  writer  in July:  (link)

0

0

• Hillary is a wretched person and a poor campaigner, but not alone!
• Others of her ilk, Democrat (and Republican) are intent on walking in her footsteps (size 6 EEE)

Clinton meets individually with potential 2020 Dems: report 

Ed Note: Liz is gonna need more than one beer if she’s gonna team up with that Loser!

WASHINGTON — Elizabeth Warren’s team doesn’t want to talk about Hillary Clinton, but that doesn’t mean the 2020 presidential candidate isn’t talking with her party’s 2016 nominee.

The two women have kept a line of communication open since the Massachusetts senator decided to run for president — though only a conversation around the time of Warren’s launch has been previously reported — according to several people familiar with their discussions who spoke to NBC on the condition of anonymity because of the political sensitivity of private interactions.

And get this: (Via The Hill)

CNN and Axios reported Friday that Clinton has had private conversations with prominent Democrats such as Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), as well as others including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (D) and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D).

“People are direct in saying they want her support,” one source close to Clinton told CNN. “Others are reaching out.”

“Hillary wants Trump gone,” another confidant of the former secretary of State and 2016 Democratic nominee told Axios. “She doesn’t know who’s best able to beat him, but she knows about grueling nomination fights.”

Seriously, someone close to Hillary said  -“grueling nomination fights” —  that must mean  maintaining a straight face while the fix was in??

And . . . Democrats Can’t Even Be Original — They get  their lines from other socialists

NH Democratic Chair Mockingly Suggests Trump Is the Devil with a Lingering ‘Sulfur Smell’

On Saturday, New Hampshire Democratic Party chair Raymond Buckley opened his state’s Democratic convention by suggesting President Donald Trump is the devil.

Buckley said, “First off, I want to apologize. Two weeks ago, Donald Trump was here, and we did our best to get the sulfur smell out of here, and I apologize, but they’re still a lingering scent.”

The quip has been in the Demo song-book for a at least a decade:

From the BBC,  24 September 2009 :

“The Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, has told the United Nations General Assembly that its podium smelled more of hope than of sulphur, now that there was a new administration in Washington. 

“His speech before the General Assembly was his first since his appearance there in 2006 when he derided President Bush as the devil. 

“Mr Chavez said that with President Barack Obama in office, there was now a palpable new air of hope.

Intent on their day in the sun are a couple ~~ Republicans~~ 

Former Rep. Mark Sanford to challenge Trump in GOP primary

Better Keep Him Off The Appalachian Trail !

Hard to keep up with good ol’ Mark. In 2009 he had to resign from head of the Republican Governors’ association when it was learned of his extra marital affair with a South American woman. He also had to “resign” from his marriage of 21 years when it was revealed that he was with his girl friend when his office said he was hiking the Appalachian Trail.

In 2014, Mark also resigned from his ‘engagement’ to the woman.

And another Republican, Joe Walsh  — someone the two George’s could love —  George Will and George “not Kellyanne” Conway and that’s about it.  (picture not in original)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p29jRMHP3G0

OOPS! The Wrong Joe Walsh…but maybe the ‘real’ one would be a better candidate.

With George Conway as your chief advisor, you’re more likely to be committed, than elected.

“I am honored to have his advice. I speak with him often. He’s a wonderful adviser,” Walsh said of Conway during an interview Saturday with CNN’s Fredricka Whitfield. “As far as any formal role with our campaign, I would only be so lucky as to have somebody like George Conway involved.”

Like Congressman Joe Walsh, “advisors” are where you find’em…under rocks sometimes…

*ed note: the go-to network for aspiring Republicans

0

0

Trump kills the White House press briefing, 50 years after it was born

Whatever one might think of Donald Trump, it must be admitted that he is fearless. instead of acting like a craven politician, president Trump acts like a normal human being…with courage, without fear, and with a keen sense of how to respond to vicious, unfair, adolescent behavior. The press needs more intellectually mature adults if it wants to have white house briefings reinstated.    DLH

Red Flag Laws Spur Debate Over Due Process  

. . .  But for two decades, since the first such law was enacted in Connecticut, civil and gun rights advocates have protested that the seizures violate the U.S. Constitution’s due process guarantee — meaning residents have a right to fully argue their case in court.  . . .

OBAMA AT COLUMBIA – OR WAS HE?
Revelations from George Stephanopoulos, Newsweek, and Columbia grads from Israel

The link above appeared in the reputable Front Page magazine. Every past effort, however serious and valid in raising these questions has been ridiculed, buried, superficially and unseriously ‘debunked’. The actual facts, however, suggest that there are many honest questions which have gone unanswered…even brushed aside…because, in my opinion, the answers could be devastating in so many ways.  DLH

Woman Drops ‘Forcible Kiss’ Trump Lawsuit After Furious Judge Views Cellphone Footage

A former Trump campaign aide has dropped a lawsuit against the president after cellphone footage revealed her claim to be baseless.   . . .

Johnson is also dropping a separate claim that the Trump campaign underpaid women and minority employees,   . . .

“The President and Campaign are weighing their legal options against Ms. Johnson at this time, and have demanded that she reimburse them for the attorneys’ fees and costs they incurred in her failed lawsuit,” he said, adding “Just as the President defeated the Stormy Daniels’ lawsuit and obtained an order requiring her to pay his legal fees, so too should Alva Johnson reimburse the President’s legal fees and costs incurred here.”

Interestingly, the MSM seemed to hold this “credible accusation” at arm’s length – perhaps because Trump kissing a black woman would conflict with their ‘super racist president’ narrative, or maybe because it was obvious BS from the start?

0

0

~~ If you like your Catholic faith, you can keep your Catholic faith”… as long as you don’t “obsess” over things like abortion at the expense of ‘climate change’, socialism, and open borders.~~

A ‘harsh’ and a ‘dishonest portrayal’ of this ‘humble Man of God’?

Don’t think so. Pope Francis has been outspoken about his disdain for capitalism, has blamed The United States for all the ..misfortune that has befallen Latin America, has ’embraced’ prominent international Communist figures and leftist dictators ( i.e., the Castros, Bolivia’s Evo Morales*…shown presenting Pope Francis with a “memento”).

He has also chastised Catholics for their “obsessing” about the evils of abortion and presumably insufficiently concerned about ‘climate change’.

Francis has been openly critical of President Trump for any effort to enforce immigration law.      DLH

And he has seen his efforts reflected in professors teaching at Catholic institutions:

Catholic Priest Claims Climate Change, Not Killing Babies in Abortions, the Biggest Pro-Life Issue 

You can infer the logic of his argument as anything that allegedly threatens to immediately make the planet uninhabitable is a priority.  Any claim to that as regards climate change is as nutty as the young professor. Never mind the definitive demonstrable ongoing devastation of human life through abortion and euthanasia.  The logic of such teaching invites “the sky is falling” one upmanship, however tenuous.  Nuclear war, other WMD’s, astroid collision, pandemic, well the priest has a lot of band wagons to promote however obtuse the logic as applied or the equivalent consequences to human life compared to removing the right to life.   Anything to promote one-world government.

And the key thing this actually un-woke cassocked clown misses — if you do not have a right to life, you do not have a right to anything else on this earth or of this earth.  Abortion is the ecological devastation of the womb which is of this earth, as humans are. First things first, the right to life.

R Mall

————————-

*At the 73rd United Nations General Assembly, President Donald Trump has learned what the world thinks of him.

First, the Assembly laughed when he celebrated his administration’s achievements. Later, Bolivian President Evo Morales blasted the Trump administration’s policies.

“The United States does not care for democracy,”*  Morales said, as President Trump sat a couple of seats down. “The United States does not care for human rights or justice.”

And he didn’t stop there. Morales criticized the Trump Administration’s decision to pull away from the United Nations Human Rights Council and its threats toward democratically elected governments in Latin America. The Bolivian president spoke out against the United States for promoting the use of torture in the past and for separating children from their parents at the US-Mexico border. As part of his speech at the General Assembly’s Security Council meeting, Morales additionally denounced the Trump Administration’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and for opting out of the Paris Accord on climate change.

The Bolivian president – its first Indigenous leader – highlighted the steps the country has taken against US military bases and control. “In Bolivia, we have gotten rid of US military bases and aid,” Morales said. “Now, Bolivia is an example for the region and for the world, we have one of the fastest-growing economies in the region.”

In the video, Trump, who’s not a Spanish speaker, does not wear translation aid headphones as he looks directly at Morales. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo listens closely to Morales’ comments through the headphones.

*”Does not care for democracy” now that is rich coming from Morales. As the Encyclopedia Britannica informs us  :

. . . in February 2016 Bolivians rejected (by a vote of about 51 percent to 49 percent) a constitutional change that would have allowed Morales to run for another term as president in 2019.

Morales appeared to be resigned to the results, but in September 2017 the MAS (Bolivian Socialist party Morales leads) asked the constitutional court to remove term limits for the presidency, and in November the court did just that. In December 2018 the Supreme Electoral Court upheld that decision, prompting widespread street protests but paving the way for Morales to run for reelection in 2019.  . . .

0

0

• PPPC or CCCP, whichever
• Majority now Francis appointees – the Francis Franchise
• Of the now 128 in the college of cardinals — 67 electors have now been appointed by Francis with 61 by his two predecessors (and many of those were part of picking Francis)
• If the predecessors of the new picks’ in the Magisterium were correct on matters of faith and morals, interpretations of scripture, etc., how can these be?*

“Birds” of a feather appointed together

Inside baseball The Franchise:

The following excerpted information is from The National Catholic Register.  The article is written matter-of-factually as the publication would be described as loyal to the Pope however somewhat conservative its editors and columnists. The bold in red is our emphasis but from that you might glean what to possibly expect from this cast of characters.    R Mall

Profiles of Pope Francis’ New Cardinals

As with the Holy Father’s previous appointments, they have a broad geographical scope and are supportive of issues he has prioritized, such as immigration, the environment and dialogue with Islam.

At the top of the list of the 10 new cardinal-electors was Bishop Miguel Angel Ayuso Guixot. Born in Seville, Spain, the 67-year-old has been president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue since May this year, succeeding the late Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran. Benedict XVI appointed Bishop Ayuso secretary (deputy) of the dicastery in 2012, and he has led various interreligious meetings, written numerous books and articles, and speaks a number of languages, including Arabic.

A former president of the Pontifical Institute for Arab and Islamic Studies in Rome, Bishop Ayuso was heavily involved in drawing up the  “Human Fraternity” document signed Feb. 4 by Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb, grand imam of Al-Azhar, and the Pope in Abu Dhabi. The Vatican called it “an important step forward” and a “powerful sign of peace and hope” between the two religions, but critics have expressed strong reservations about a passage in the document that stated the “diversity of religions” is “willed by God,” arguing that it contradicts a central belief of the Church by relativizing the uniqueness of Christ and the Church.

Archbishop José Tolentino de Mendonça, the archivist and librarian of the Holy Roman Church only since June 2018, is a Portuguese prelate who has had a meteoric rise. He was a priest virtually unknown outside Portugal until the Pope chose him to preach at his Lenten retreat last year. Born in Madeira in 1965, Archbishop Tolentino de Mendonça has a doctorate in biblical theology, and in 2011 he became a consultor for the Pontifical Council of Culture. Elevated to archbishop upon taking up his current post, he has published numerous volumes and articles of a theological and exegetical nature, as well as several works of poetry. 

But he has also been a controversial figure who wrote the introduction to a book on feminist theology by Sister Maria Teresa Forcada. Dubbed by the BBC as “Europe’s most radical nun” and known for promoting “queer theology,” Sister Maria Teresa is pro-abortion, stridently anti-capitalist and for women’s ordination. In his introduction, Father Tolentino de Mendonça wrote that he believed her “apostolate” should be a model for a Christianity “free” of past and present dogmatic ties and that her value is to have “highlighted the importance of ethical relations free of rigid and codified rules.”

Archbishop Matteo Zuppi, whom Francis chose to be the surprise successor to Cardinal Carlo Caffarra as archbishop of Bologna in 2015, served as an assistant priest and then parish priest of Rome’s historic Santa Maria in Trastevere parish from 1981 to 2010 and then as assistant ecclesiastical general to the Sant’Egidio lay community in Rome. Benedict XVI appointed him an auxiliary bishop of Rome in 2012. 

Known as a “priest of the streets” for his outreach to the elderly, immigrants, gypsies and drug addicts, he also participated in Sant’Egidio peace initiatives in Africa, in particular its mediations to liberate kidnapped missionaries and its successfully brokered peace deal in Mozambique and Burundi, working with Nelson Mandela. Popular among Italians, he likes to ride around Bologna on a bicycle, and his sensitivity to social issues is thought to bring him close to Francis. During his visit to Bologna two years ago, the Pope was reportedly pleased when the archbishop offered him a lunch with the poor of the city. Many on Italy’s political left received the news of his red hat with great enthusiasm. 

Archbishop Zuppi has drawn criticism for writing an Italian preface to Jesuit Father James Martin’s book Building a Bridge in which he endorsed a new pastoral attitude for so-called “LGBT” Catholics. But Archbishop Zuppi’s supporters have told the Register that his position is more nuanced than Father Martin has made it out to be (Father Martin described him as a “great supporter of ‘LGBT’ Catholics”) and that while the archbishop calls for a more sensitive pastoral approach in his foreword, he reasserts the Church’s teaching on the issue and calls faithfully Catholic outreach groups such as Courage “instructive.”

Archbishop Jean-Claude Höllerich, a Jesuit who was appointed archbishop of Luxembourg by Benedict XVI in 2011, is also president of the Catholic bishops’ conference in the European Union (COMECE). He has shown himself to be a kindred spirit to Pope Francis on a number of issues. In April, he made headlines by writing in the Jesuit journal La Civiltà Cattolica that European populists are playing a “wicked game” by exploiting people’s fears regarding immigration and security. The “drama” of migrants in Europe, he said, was a “disgrace” and that “to remove our fears we are presented with enemies: migrants, Islam, the Jews, etc.” He added that President Donald Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon and Russian political analyst Aleksandr Dugin were the “priests of these populisms that evoke a false pseudo-religious and pseudo-mystical world, denying the heart of Western theology, which is God’s love and love of neighbor.”

He has expressed his full support for the upcoming Amazon synod, telling a conference promoted jointly by COMECE, REPAM (the Church organization set up in 2014 to prepare the synod) and the German Catholic aid organizations Adveniat and Misereor that the Amazon faces “a global problem which requires a global response.” He added: “We must immerse ourselves in reality, because it is in reality that we find God. And today this reminds us to care for creation, which requires a real revolution in custom, mentality and the economy.” At last year’s youth synod, the archbishop said discernment “is not about black and white, but discovering all the different colors and shades of reality.” A former teacher of seminarians and vocations director, Archbishop Höllerich has close links with the Church in Japan, having been a student chaplain and then vice rector at Tokyo’s Sophia University.

Jesuit Father Michael Czerny, who is the current undersecretary of the migrants and refugees section of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, is another Jesuit cardinal-elect whose opinions closely match those of Francis. Born in the former Czechoslovakia in 1946 and a Canadian citizen, Father Czerny has long specialized in social justice and human rights. From 1992 to 2002 he served as secretary for social justice at the Jesuits’ General Curia and afterwards founded and directed the African Jesuit AIDS Network (AJAN). In 2005 he taught in Nairobi, collaborating with Kenya’s bishops’ conference. In 2009, Benedict XVI appointed him an expert at the Synod on Africa.

Often seen at justice and peace meetings or gatherings involving environmental concerns, Father Czerny’s influence grew when he was appointed a consultor for the now-defunct Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace in 2010. There he served, and continues to serve, as a chief adviser to Cardinal Peter Turkson, offering him advice on a wide range of social-justice issues. Francis has often relied on his expertise, making him a member of last year’s youth synod. He is one of the special secretaries of the upcoming Amazon synod and a leading figure in promoting the meeting’s narrative.

Among the new cardinals “on the peripheries” is Archbishop Ignatius Suharyo Hardjoatmodjo of Jakarta, Indonesia — the world’s most populous Muslim nation (in 2018, according to the CIA Factbook, Catholics numbered 2.9%, or 7.6 million of its population of 263 million people). Born in 1950, he was first appointed as bishop of Semarang by John Paul II in 1997 before Benedict appointed him archbishop of Jakarta in 2010. Considered to be close to the Indonesian state, he was re-elected for an unprecedented third term last year as president of Indonesia’s bishops’ conference because of an “urgent need” (he said he was unsure what the nature of the urgency was). He attended the 2012 Synod on the New Evangelization and the Synods on the Family. Francis appointed him a member of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. 

Archbishop Juan de la Caridad García Rodríguez of San Cristóbal, Havana, Cuba, has been a bishop since 1997, when Pope St. John Paul II named him auxiliary of Camagüey. He became its archbishop in 2002, and one of his initiatives was to develop evangelization programs in which grandparents, who still remembered their education in Catholicism as children, taught the principles of Catholicism to their grandchildren. He also established prison ministries. He represented Cuba at the 2007 CELAM assembly in Aparecida, Brazil. Francis appointed him archbishop of Havana in April 2016. He has reportedly said he does not want capitalism to come to Cuba, but, rather, “a progressing socialism.”

As Cardinal Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya of Kinshasa — a former member of Pope Francis’ council of cardinals — turns 80 next month, the Pope has chosen to elevate to cardinal his successor in Kinshasa, Archbishop Fridolin Ambongo Besungu. Born in 1960, Archbishop Besungu, who is a Capuchin, will be one of the youngest members of the College of Cardinals. He studied partly in Rome, at the Accademia Alfonsiana, where he obtained a degree in moral theology, and has served as the president of the National Assembly of Major Superiors (ASUMA). After being appointed bishop of Bokungu-Ikela in 2005, he was chosen to be president of the Episcopal Commission “Justice and Peace,” after which he became archbishop of Mbandaka-Bikoro in 2016. In June 2016 he became vice president of Congo’s bishops’ conference. Pope Francis named him archbishop of Kinshasa last year. 

Appointed bishop by Pope St. John Paul II in 1989, Bishop Alvaro Ramazzini Imeri, 72, was born in Guatemala City and has long been involved in social-justice issues, especially in the area of protecting the rights of indigenous people. In 2011, he was awarded the Pacem in Terris Peace and Freedom Award for his courageous work to empower the poor and marginalized. Previous recipients have included Martin Luther King Jr., Dorothy Day and Mother Teresa.** First ordained bishop in 1989, he was Guatemala’s bishops’ conference president from 2006 to 2008 and took part in the 2007 CELAM assembly in Aparecida where Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio played a leading role. Benedict XVI nominated him as bishop of Huehuetenango in 2012.

Lastly, the Pope chose Archbishop Cristóbal López Romero of Rabat, Morocco, as a new cardinal. Born in 1952 in Vélez-Rubio of the Diocese of Almería in Spain, the Salesian priest studied in Barcelona and obtained a licentiate in information sciences in the city’s School of Journalism in 1982. From 1979 to 1984 he was known for his pastoral ministry toward the marginalized in Barcelona, and from 1983 to 2003 he served as a missionary in Paraguay. From 2011 to 2014, he was head of pastoral parish and school ministry in Kenitra, Morocco, before serving as Salesian provincial in Bolivia from 2011 to 2014. Francis appointed him bishop of Rabat in December 2017. 

The Pope also chose three other Churchmen, over the age of 80, to become cardinals in view of their distinguished “service for the Church:”

Now some of these might not be as liberal as their pedigree but unfortunately the least worrisome pedigrees might be as liberal as the most liberal pedigree.    R Mall

*While regrettably not being much of a Christian period, much less in full communion with the Catholic Church, this writer certainly appreciates its core teachings and so many of its faithful claimants. It has been our hope that Christendom’s leaders would lead us away from the temptations of the wholly unChristian socialist/communist mindset. To put it mildly we are not seeing that in this Pope nor in any harbingers emanating from His Holiness.

** not mentioned, but significant to understanding the mindset of the Pacem in Terris award committee over the years, awardees have also included Saul Alinsky,  Thomas Gumbleton, Helen Caldicott, Desmond Tutu and Sister Simone Campbell , among many other mostly leftist icons.

0

0

• 52% of the next Pope’s electors are now Pope Francis’s picks

FDR TRIED IT IN 1937 BUT WAS PREVENTED WHEN AMERICA REALIZED IT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ATTEMPTED POWER GRAB BY THE PRESIDENT.

The first A might stand for “Apostasy”

Following his ‘landslide’ reelection in 1936, President Franklin Roosevelt, unhappy that the Supreme Court kept overturning his more radical “New Deal” proposals, devised a plan to change the makeup of the Court and get more Justices appointed who would be favorable to his desires.

His proposed law targeted Justices over the age of 70 and who had served 10 years or more on the Court.

Roosevelt proposed to appoint up to six additional Justices to the Supreme Court that he thought would vote as he wished for every Justice older than 70 years, 6 months.

His plan was recognized by the American people as nothing more than a political ploy to change the court for favorable rulings on the president’s more radical New Deal legislative programs.

Roosevelt’s plan was never voted on by Congress, the Supreme Court Justices opposed it and a majority of the American public did not support it.

Pope Francis has had better luck than FDR, no doubt because he enjoys greater political power than any US president. The former Cardinal Bergoglio had to be elected for a lifetime term only once. In fact, Francis can do pretty much anything he wants to do…and has exercised that privilege very liberally during his tenure.

This week he completed his version of “court packing” that FDR had so fervently desired.

On Sunday, Pope Francis announced his appointment of 13 men he would ‘bestow red hats on’ October 5. Ten of them are eligible to vote for Pope Francis’s eventual successor, presumably one of very much his liking who will carry on the ‘changes’ in the Church Francis has made. This brings to the number of “electors” named by Francis to 67, or 52%.

DLH
———————————

(Only last week, Pope Francis, whom many Catholics believe is the most left-leaning Head of the Catholic Church in its history, accepted 7 Catholic bishops who had been appointed by the Communist Chinese government. (The seven had been excommunicated by the Church because of their earlier appointment as bishops by the ‘atheist’ Communist Party.)

0

0