Belgian Catholic Bishops’ Same-Sex Blessing

Pope Francis has been notably more accepting of homosexuality than previous pontiffs

Bombshell in Belgium, Bishops Publish liturgy for the blessing of Gay unions.







Father Elias Leyds Responds To Belgian Bishops Blessing Same-Sex Unions 



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

In “Francis Forgives Everyone,” I suggested that the main thrust of the Francis papacy is to de-emphasize sin.

But if Francis wants to forgive everyone, he’d better hurry up before some European bishops beat him to the punch. Just recently, the Flemish bishops of Belgium published a document for the pastoral care of homosexuals, which included a liturgical blessing for same-sex couples.

As several Catholic theologians were quick to point out, however, the blessing is problematic because, unlike the general blessing at the end of Mass, it is intended to bless a specific arrangement—namely, a same-sex union.

Some fear that the proposed blessing (the Flemish-speaking bishops plan to present it to Francis later this year) could tear the Catholic Church apart. That may seem like an exaggeration, but there is good reason to believe that the Belgian bishop’s proposal is meant to bring things to a head by forcing Francis’s hand on the issue of same-sex “marriage.”

One reason to think so is that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)—the ultimate authority on doctrinal definitions—has already made clear that “the Church does not, have and cannot have, the power to bless unions of persons of the same sex.”  The document was published in March of 2021 with the express approval of Francis.

The CDF isn’t saying that a priest can’t give his blessing to a homosexual individual, only that he can’t bless a same-sex union.  By the same token, the Church can’t bless the union between a man and a woman living in adultery.  The problem with the “Belgian blessing” is that it is intended to bless same-sex unions—the very thing that the CDF says the Church has no power to do.

To a non-Catholic, this may seem like a tempest in a teapot, but it is, in fact, a very big deal because it constitutes a challenge to the Church’s teaching authority.  The Belgian bishops are saying, in effect, that the Church has been in error to teach that homosexual acts are sinful.  This puts the CDF on the spot, it puts Francis on the spot, and it puts the Church in danger of schism.

It could also prompt Francis’s resignation.  Although Francis is quite obviously a friend of the LGBT movement in the Church (just look at his appointments), he seems also to have reservations about going too far too fast.  Despite what some conservative Catholics may think, Francis does appear to have some fear of God—and also of the Devil.  Perhaps, he would prefer to leave the decision to his successor.

Coincidentally, one of the prelates who is often mentioned as a possible successor to Francis just happens to be the top bishop in Luxembourg—the small country which borders Belgium.  As president of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conference of the European Union (COMECE) Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich is also the top bishop in Europe.  As an additional sign of his faith in Hollerich, Francis recently appointed him as the realtor general of the much-heralded Synod on Synodality.

But perhaps the most salient fact about Cardinal Hollerich is that earlier this year he asserted that the Church’s prohibition of sodomy is now “false” because “the sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching is no longer correct.”

Should Hollerich be elected pope and should he continue to insist that the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality is erroneous, it will likely set off a firestorm of controversy both inside and outside the Church.

Another key player in this drama is Father James Martin, SJ. who is currently the most prominent Catholic advocate of the LGBT movement.  Martin says that chastity is not required of homosexuals because the teaching (to remain chaste) has not been “received” by the Catholic LGBT community.  Martin also states that Catholics must “reverence homosexual unions.”  In short, like Cardinal Hollerich, Martin seems to be saying that existing Church teaching about homosexuality is in error.

It’s not as though Francis is firmly opposed to the position taken by Hollerich and Martin.  Hollerich has said that he is “in full agreement with Pope Francis.”  Moreover, Francis has showered praise on Fr. Martin, encouraged him in his work, admitted him to a private audience, and appointed him as a consultant to the Vatican’s Secretariat for Communications.

If the debate about homosexual unions does lead to some kind of schism it will most likely result in a schism between orthodox (traditional) Catholics and “progressive” Catholics like Francis, Hollerich, and Martin.  The blessing of same-sex unions may well be the final straw for those Catholics who not only object to Francis’s “progressive” reforms but also doubt whether he is really the legitimate pope.

As I have suggested elsewhere, the ultimate aim of Francis and other progressives is not to reform the Church but to transform it into a humanistic rather than a supernatural faith.

Although the Church has always been in some sense a humanitarian faith, there are some crucial areas in which a purely humanistic philosophy is opposed to Christian teaching.

The main point of division is sin.  Although the Church affirms that we are made in the image of God, it also maintains that we are sinners in need of a Savior.  Although Christ mingled with prostitutes and tax collectors, he did not bless their sins.  Rather, he told them to sin no more, and to follow him.

By contrast, humanists tend to think that people are fine the way they are.  Like Francis, they may be concerned with corporate sins and sins against the environment, but not so much with personal sins.

But from an orthodox Christian perspective, minimizing sin is self-destructive.  That’s because salvation from sin is the essence of the Christian story.  When you take away sin, you take away the whole rationale for Christianity.  If I’m okay the way I am, why do I need the “transformation in Christ” that Paul speaks of in his epistles?

The current humanist movement in the Church is not a brand-new phenomenon.  It owes a lot to the modernist movement in the Church at the turn of the 20th century, and also to the human potential movement of the late 20th century.  The latter merged with the popular self-esteem movement and became a powerful force in both Church and society.

The main argument of the self-esteem gurus and of their counterparts within the Church was that people who feel good about themselves aren’t tempted to do bad things.  As a result, examination of conscience and frequent confession gave way to an emphasis on self-acceptance—on learning to love yourself just the way you are and on having confidence that God loves you just the way you are.

Fr. Martin is, of course, a product of this 60’s-style “follow-your-feelings” approach to morality.  His fuzzy argument about the LGBT community not being bound by the rule of chastity because they haven’t “received” it is evidence of this.  For Fr. Martin, the only thing that matters is that you feel good about yourself and your relationship with partner X.  Nothing else is required and you can be sure that God will smile on your union.

One hitch in the self-esteem hypothesis that was apparently overlooked by Martin is that further research revealed that psychopaths and prison inmates tend to have exceptionally high self-esteem scores. Feeding one’s self-esteem doesn’t necessarily result in better behavior, and it can result in worse.  Consider the recent experiments with reducing or eliminating bail, defunding the police, and giving their jobs to idealistic social workers.  Such experiments often feed the sense of law-breakers that they are special, that the rules don’t apply to them, and that there should be no consequences for their behavior.

And that should give us second thoughts about the current eruption of self-acceptance theory among progressive Catholics. Certain regard for one’s self—self-respect—is good up to a point.  But beyond that point, it can lead to self-absorption and self-centeredness.  Catholics and other Christians are called to avoid this temptation and to examine their conscience in light of scripture and tradition.  But progressives think it’s enough for people to simply celebrate themselves as they are.  But “celebrate yourself” is a very slippery slope and it can lead to some dark places.  Currently, for example, some elements of the pro-choice movement have been calling on women to celebrate their abortions.

Cardinal Hollerich approaches the matter from a somewhat different angle than Martin, but not one that inspires confidence in his ability to lead the Church.  What’s missing in the theology of Hollerich (and also Martin) is any sense of objective morality—what Cardinal Francis Arinze refers to as “the order established by God the Creator.”  According to Church teaching and tradition, the nature of marriage is revealed to us both by scriptural revelation and by natural law— “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” referred to in the Declaration of Independence.  In place of the order of marriage established by God, Cardinal Hollerich offers thinly disguised relativism.  Hollerich seems to think that criticism of same-sex unions is founded on outmoded biology and anthropology and must now be revised in light of recent advances in sociology and science.  But he fails to explain how morality can be deduced from either sociology or science.  Perhaps by polling a sufficient number of people?  By consulting Kinsey?  By capturing the elusive pregnant man? The effectiveness of sociologically and scientifically “correct” sex education can be gauged by the wreckage of the sexual revolution.

The damage we have already seen suggests that we can’t afford any more experiments with readjusting the order established by God to suit our own inclinations.  If the Belgian bishops don’t accept natural law (which is based on biological and anatomical facts) or revealed law, then what is to be the standard?  Is each person to be a law unto himself or herself?

If European bishops continue to mislead Catholics about the nature of marriage, their efforts will turn out to be much more of a curse than a blessing.


Cardinal Eijk: stop Flemish bishops from blessing gay couples

BY Willem Jacobus Eijk


Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

The declaration of the Flemish Belgian bishops with their ad hoc liturgy for gay couples contradicts the Churchs teaching on homosexuality and a recent Vatican declaration. It’s necessary for the competent authorities to intervene now so the document is withdrawn and the Belgian bishops to obey. Cardinal Eijk  Archbishop of Utrecht speaks out.

Italiano Español


Cardinal Eijk

The Belgian Flemish bishops surprised many inside and outside the Church with the statement published on 20 September 2022 entitled: Being pastorally close to a homosexual person - For a welcoming Church that excludes no one. For Catholics who accept the Church's teaching, this was not at all a pleasant surprise. Indeed, in the aforementioned declaration, the Flemish bishops offer the possibility of blessing same-sex couples in a lasting, monogamous relationship.

In a statement, they also provide a model for a celebration of the Word and prayer in which the blessing of same-sex couples can take shape. Its outline is as follows:

- Opening Word;
- Opening prayer;
- Scripture reading;
- Expressing the commitment of both parties to each other, manifesting before God their mutual bond; this can be done, for example, in the following terms:

God of love and faithfulness, today we stand before You surrounded by family and friends. We thank You that we have been able to find each other. We want to be there for each other in all circumstances of life. We confidently express that we want to work for each other's happiness, day by day. We pray: grant us the strength to remain faithful to one another and to deepen our commitment. In your closeness we trust, by your Word, we want to live, given to each other for good.

- Then follows the community prayer; the community prays that God's grace may work in them to care for each other and the community in which they live; an example of this prayer is also given:

God and Father, today we surround N. and N. with our prayers. You know their hearts and the path they will take together from now on. Make their commitment to each other strong and faithful. May their home be filled with understanding, tolerance, and care. Let there be room for reconciliation and peace. May the love they share be for them joy and service to our community. Give us the strength to walk with them, together in the footsteps of your Son and strengthened by the Spirit.

- Intercessions;
- Our Father;
- Final Prayer;
- Benediction.

This is the first time that a Bishops' Conference (or part of it) has issued a statement giving the example of a celebration of the Word and prayer to pronounce a blessing on a same-sex couple. The Flemish bishops took the remarkable step of allowing the blessing of same-sex couples based on their interpretation of certain passages from Amoris Laetitia (AL), the post-synodal exhortation issued by Pope Francis after both synods on the family in 2014 and 2015 respectively. In it, Pope Francis states, among other things, "that every person, regardless of his or her sexual orientation, is to be respected in his or her dignity and welcomed with respect" (AL 250).

Distinguish, accompany, and integrate remain the main keywords of Amoris Laetitia (chapter VIII), according to the Flemish bishops. It goes without saying that people with a homosexual orientation must also be treated with respect and have a right to pastoral care and guidance (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 2358-2359). By discernment, however, it is meant in Amoris Laetitia that people in an irregular relationship are brought to understand what the truth is about their relationship (AL 300). In short, they come to understand that their relationship goes against God's order of creation and is therefore morally unacceptable. Integration means giving people in an irregular relationship - as far as possible - a place in the life of the church. Of course, people in a sexual relationship with a person of the same sex are welcome in church celebrations, even if they cannot receive communion or actively participate in the celebration.

The Flemish bishops' statement on the blessing of same-sex couples meets with several inherent objections:

1. Blessings are sacramentals, not sacraments. The Flemish bishops also explicitly state that the blessing of same-sex couples is not a marriage. Sacramentals, on the other hand, are sacred signs that resemble the sacraments in a certain sense and that produce particularly spiritual fruits for the persons receiving the blessing, preparing them to receive the main effect of the sacraments. The sacramentals also sanctify particular situations in life (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium regarding the blessing of same-sex unions, 22 February 2021). The sacramentals are to some extent analogous to the sacraments. The declaration prayer in which same-sex couples commit to each other shows an unequivocal analogy with the 'I do' that a man and a woman say to each other during the marriage ceremony. In it, in fact, the same-sex couple prays: “We want to be there for each other in all the circumstances of life ... grant us the strength to remain faithful to one another and to deepen our commitment". We also find this analogy with the Yes of husband and wife at the marriage ceremony in the community prayer: "Make strong and faithful their commitment to each other." The fear, therefore, is not unfounded: the transition from this blessing to same-sex marriage is not a big step and will be possible in the near future. 

2. Blessing does not only presuppose a good intention on the part of the recipient. What is blessed must also correspond to God's order of creation. God created marriage as a total and mutual gift of man and woman to each other, culminating in procreation (Gaudium et spes, no. 48; cf. no. 50). Sexual relations between persons of the same sex cannot in themselves lead to procreation. They cannot, therefore, be an authentic expression at the bodily level of the total mutual self-giving of man and woman, in which marriage is essential. Situations that are objectively wrong from a moral point of view cannot be blessed. God's grace does not shine on the path of sin. One cannot cultivate spiritual fruit by blessing relationships that go against God's order of creation (ibid.). This, of course, does not prevent homosexual individuals from receiving a blessing. However, it is not morally permissible to bless the homosexual relationship as such.

3. The arguments in points 1 and 2 are cited in the answer given by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 22 February 2021 to a question on the blessing of homosexual relationships. However, with their statement allowing the blessing of same-sex couples, the Flemish bishops go against the aforementioned statement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Flemish bishops are also bound by it.

4. In the community's prayer on the occasion of the blessing of gay couples, the Flemish bishops said that the community prays "for God's grace to work" in the gay couple to enable them to care for each other and the community they live in. However, we cannot pray for God's grace to work in a relationship that does not conform to his order of creation. The Flemish bishops do not explicitly say that same-sex relationships are justifiable. However, even the wording of the community prayer in their liturgical model for the blessing of gay couples suggests that same-sex relationships can be morally justified. Indeed, in the end, the community prays: "Give us the strength to walk with them, together in the footsteps of your Son and strengthened by the Spirit”. Do same-sex people in their same-sex relationships follow in the footsteps of Christ? So do the Flemish bishops really believe that same-sex couples in their same-sex relationship follow in the footsteps of Christ? In the sample prayer, the gay couple says: "By your Word, we want to live." But the Word of God contained in Scripture unequivocally and undeniably qualifies homosexual relationships as a sin. At the very least, in the formulation of model prayers for the gay couple and the community, there is a risk that the average Catholic, who generally knows very little about their faith today, will be led astray and begin to think that lasting, monogamous same-sex sexual relationships are morally acceptable.

5. If gay couples in monogamous, lasting sexual relationships can receive a blessing, should not the same be possible in the monogamous, lasting sexual relationships of a man and a woman living together without being married? Allowing the blessing of gay couples carries the great risk of devaluing blessings and undermining the Church's teaching on the morality of marriage and sexual ethics.

The statement of the Flemish bishops, in which they allow the blessing of same-sex couples and even provide a liturgical model for it, meets with inherent ethical objections, radically contradicts a recent ruling by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and carries the risk that it may lead Catholics to views on the morality of same-sex relationships that are contrary to Church teaching. Catholics who accept the Church's teaching, including on sexual morality, therefore fervently hope that the Flemish bishops will soon be asked by ecclesiastically competent circles to withdraw their statement and that the latter will comply.

* Cardinal, Archbishop of Utrecht

Parental Authority: The Basis of Civilization



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

As most Americans now realize, America is experiencing a societal breakdown. This should be obvious to anyone, even those facilitating this breakdown as they openly acknowledge they seek to break down American society.

This is a society that teaches its youngest citizens a suicidal lie: that America was founded in 1619, that it was built on slavery, and that even today it is systemically racist. At the same time, it does not teach the fundamental moral fact that every culture practiced slavery — Arab, Muslim, African, Asian, Native American — and usually more viciously (e.g., Arab slave masters routinely castrated black slaves so that they could not reproduce) than in America.

This is a society that robs its youngest of sexual innocence. Teachers — nearly all of them women, the sex that society has always regarded as the natural guardians of sexual innocence — now routinely sexualize young people with discussions of sexual behavior and by having drag queens perform for them.

This is a society that has taken as a given that there are more than two sexes; that has Jewish and Christian clergy sign emails with “preferred pronouns”; that will praise the Disney Corporation for dropping all references to “boys and girls” from its theme park announcements.

This is a society in which refusing to say that men give birth can lead to social banning and the loss of one’s job and income.

This is a society that encourages violent crime. It elects prosecutors who allow violent criminals to avoid having to pay bail. Its elites advocate defunding the police. It keeps raising the dollar amount of stolen goods that constitute a felony. In short, America is now a society in which the dominant message to would-be criminals is that crime pays.

This is a society in which fewer and fewer young people are marrying, fewer are having children, and more are having children without being married, usually without a father in the life of the child.

This all began with the demise of moral authority — and moral, social, and intellectual chaos is the inevitable result.

Prior to the 1960s, America had moral authority — God, country, parents, the Bible, teachers, police, and clergy.

Not one of them is a normative authority today.

Starting in the 1960s, each one was overthrown. The ’60s motto “Never trust anyone over 30” perfectly embodied this — given that every one of these was older than 30. Soon, teachers were called by their first names and frequently talked back to, even cursed; on college campuses, “America” was often spelled “Amerika,” and the flag is now declared a symbol of white supremacy; police were referred to as “pigs”; clergy were rendered irrelevant; the American motto, “In God we trust,” was ignored or mocked; and the Bible went from the dominant book in American life to the trash heap of history.

Most important, parental authority rapidly declined.

Moral stability — in other words, civilization — is dependent on parental authority. Once that breaks down, all the others mentioned here also break down.

If you look at the two tablets of the Ten Commandments, you will notice that each tablet has five commandments. The first five are laws between man and God, while the second five commandments govern behavior toward fellow human beings (do not murder, steal, etc.). The first four “rest” on the Fifth; and the second four “rest” on the Tenth.

Taking the second tablet first, the four commandments that precede the Tenth depend on obedience to the Tenth Commandment. When people murder, commit adultery, steal or offer false testimony, it is almost always because they “covet” what their neighbor has — his property, his animals, his spouse.

Likewise, the first four commandments regarding God as the One Moral Authority rest on people obeying the Fifth Commandment: “Honor your father and mother.”

Parental moral authority is the vehicle to divine moral authority. That is why the Fifth Commandment, to honor one’s parents, is the only human-to-human commandment on the first tablet. It is also the only one of the Ten Commandments that promises a reward — “that your days on the land will be lengthened” and “so that it goes well with you.” You will have a long-lived civilization and things will go well with you when parents have moral authority.

Beginning in the ’60s, parents stopped telling their children what to do and instead began asking them to do things. Parents became much more interested in being loved by their children than in being honored by their children. Children stopped fearing parents, and parents began fearing their children. Parents became much more interested in their children’s feelings than in their behavior.

Today, elementary schools and high schools work to diminish all parental authority. The most obvious example is hiding from parents that their 10-year-old says he or she is not their biological sex. And should a parent tell his or her 10-year-old, “This is not so, you were born a boy and you are a boy” or “You were born a girl and you are a girl,” those parents run the risk of having the child taken away from them, not to mention severe condemnation from doctors, psychotherapists, and social workers.

One result of the breakdown of parental authority is that we probably have more child-parent alienation than at any time in American history. There are millions of parents whose adult children will not talk to them — many of them because of the way the parent voted (if the parent voted for former President Donald Trump, not if the parent voted for Hillary Clinton or President Joe Biden).

The bottom line is this: when parents don’t rule the home, chaos will rule society. And chaos always breeds tyranny. So, the choice is stark — either we have strong parents, or we will have a strong state.

‘FREE Legal Help for Vax Choice’ with Dr. Peterson Pierre with Dr. Peterson Pierre presents Daily Dose: ‘FREE Legal Help for Vax Choice?’ (Ep. 2139 - 10.3.2022). The Real Story of Good Health ~ in 120 Seconds or Less.



The Berkeley ‘No Free Speech for Jews’ Movement



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Kenneth Marcus, who under Trump all too briefly served as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Ed, calls the move by nine student affinity groups and organizations at Berkeley’s School of Law to ban Jewish speakers to be “Jewish-Free Zones.”

Nine different law student groups at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Law, my own alma mater, have begun this new academic year by amending bylaws to ensure that they will never invite any speakers that support Israel or Zionism. And these are not groups that represent only a small percentage of the student population. They include Women of Berkeley Law, Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Middle Eastern and North African Law Students Association, Law Students of African Descent and the Queer Caucus. Berkeley Law’s Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a progressive Zionist, has observed that he himself would be banned under this standard, as would 90% of his Jewish students.

Tellingly, the rationale for this was the familiar one of safe spaces.

“In the interest of protecting the safety and welfare of Palestinian students on campus,” allies of the anti-Israel accepting its antisemitic rationale, “will not invite speakers that have expressed and continued to hold views or host/sponsor/promote events in support of Zionism, the apartheid state of Israel, and the occupation of Palestine.”

Safe spaces have become judenrein spaces. Much as they’ve become conservative-free, as they’ve purged women who believe in their own existence and anyone un-woke. Safety means total ideological tribalism and eliminating those who disagree.

And the free speech movement at Berkeley has become a no-free speech for Jews movement.

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who had previously come out against the entire category of restricting ‘hate speech’, has offered criticisms of the move, but if a dozen organizations had effectively banned black speakers from campus by say adding a code stating that they will only accept black speakers who think that slavery was wonderful, the response would be more than criticism.

This kind of thing is a straightforward case of disparate impact. And disparate impact has been used to sue universities, including Berkeley, before. Any restriction that effectively bars Jewish students from participating in a good deal of student life and restricts their career opportunities is an actual apartheid move that should be met with serious legal actions, not mere words.

Those who know history may remember the ‘Ghetto Benches’ that Jewish students in Polish universities were subjected to before the Holocaust. Nationalist student groups demanded that Jewish students be banished to ‘ghetto benches’. When the administration didn’t give in, they rioted and assaulted Jewish students. Eventually, the administrations gave in and ghetto benches became widespread. A few courageous faculty members refused to go along, but most did. It was a preview of the Holocaust which would have as its epicenter not long thereafter the mass murder of Jews in Polish death camps.

History repeats itself.

China expert Steve Mosher: Secret Vatican deal gives Church control to Communist Party

The plight of Catholics in China has not been helped by Pope Francis's secret pact with the Chinese Communist Party. LifeSiteNews journalist and commentator Kennedy Hall caught up with Vatican-China expert Steven Mosher, founder of the Population Research Institute, at the Catholic Identity Conference, which was held from September 30 to October 2, 2022, in Pittsburgh, PA. Tune in as they discuss the fate of Cardinal Joseph Zen, how the Chinese Communist Party is creating dioceses without bishops, and a comparative overview of Chinese-Vatican relations.


Federal Reserve goes authoritarian, set to force banks to adopt ‘social score’ system for customers similar to Communist China

Image: Federal Reserve goes authoritarian, set to force banks to adopt ‘social score’ system for customers similar to Communist China

Paul Joseph Watson: Weaponized Banking System Exposed



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

(Natural News) Our governing systems continue their hard-left, anti-freedom, Marxist shift, which is leading to the development of a parallel system that conservatives are flocking to.

For decades, the federal government — at every level — has been infiltrated by left-wing ideologues who are authoritarian by their very nature, and now the Federal Reserve is joining the fray.

As reported by investigative journalist Jordan Schachtel on his Substack, the Fed “has taken a major step in the direction of facilitating an ESG-compliant monetary network that effectively acts as a parallel system to that of the Chinese Communist Party’s infamous social credit scoring system.”

ESG — which stands for Environment, Social, and Governance in investing — “refers to a set of standards for a company’s behavior used by socially conscious investors to screen potential investments,” according to Investopedia. What that means in practice, of course, is that regardless of the potential for earning profits for shareholders, which banks and corporations are beholden by law to always strive for, these institutions instead only invest in “politically correct” industries and sectors. No fossil fuels, for instance, as oil and gas are so early 2000s; no big tobacco; and nothing that has anything to do with Israel, just to name a few (because the hard left is comprised of true bigots and racists).

“Six of the nation’s largest banks will participate in a pilot climate scenario analysis exercise designed to enhance the ability of supervisors and firms to measure and manage climate-related financial risks,” the Fed noted in a statement last week. “Scenario analysis—in which the resilience of financial institutions is assessed under different hypothetical climate scenarios—is an emerging tool to assess climate-related financial risks, and there will be no capital or supervisory implications from the pilot.”

In short, Schachtel said, the Federal Reserve “is working with the big banks to monitor their ability to comply with the ruling class’s preferred enviro statist technocratic tyranny.”

He goes on to say that the unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats at the Fed who are responsible for this new exercise claim it is only “exploratory in nature and does not have capital consequences.” The statement from the nation’s money printer also said that the “scenario analysis can assist firms and supervisors in understanding how climate-related financial risks may manifest and differ from historical experience.”

Then, why bother with this exercise at all? What’s the real purpose behind it? As Schachtel explains, there is always a statist purpose behind everything the American deep state does:

The Fed is clearly leaning into the climate hoax narrative, or the pseudoscientific idea that humans are catastrophically impacting the climate, but not because they somehow care about the environment. The climate narrative is the chief rhetorical facilitator for the ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) movement. 

ESG acts as a trojan horse for the continuing centralization of the American financial system. ESG finance, popularized by hyper-political asset management behemoths like BlackRock and Vanguard, acts to prevent outsiders from challenging the regime-connected insiders on Wall Street and in Washington, under the guise of acting to manifest a healthier planet. 

In short, institutions that are all-in for ESG essentially commit themselves to further attacking and eroding our founding free-market principles through deception, instead preferring Chinese communist-style “stakeholder capitalism” that empowers a small group of uber-elites and technocrats to make important decisions and broad determinations for all of the society writ large.

Schachtel goes on to point out that he isn’t surprised that the mainstream media is cheering on the Fed’s tyrannical plan. The New York Times, the ringleader for the statist media, reported: “that it often lagged behind its global peers when it comes to talking about and coming up with a plan for policing risks related to climate change.”

Note that the Times’ deferential position is that the U.S. should behave like all other nations, running in lockstep with them, policywise, not doing what is best for Americans.

No wonder these people hate Donald Trump so much – he literally opposed every authoritarian tendency they have.

Sources include:

Floridians would have faced nightmare scenario if electric vehicles were the norm: Analysis

Image: Floridians would have faced nightmare scenario if electric vehicles were the norm: Analysis



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

(Natural News) An analysis that imagined what an evacuation in Florida ahead of the deadly, devastating Hurricane Ian would have looked like if most residents were driving electric vehicles is enough to horrify any rational person.

The hurricane, which slammed into the Gulf Coast of the Sunshine State on Wednesday near the Ft. Myers area, left in its wake massive damage, flooding, and death. Fortunately for residents, GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis and state emergency officials warned them more than a week ago what a monster Ian was developing into and for those in the storm’s path to get out.

But had most residents been saddled with electric vehicles that are using current technologies and infrastructure, as bad as the hurricane was, the disaster would have been even greater.

Simply put, vast numbers of residents who would have tried to escape the storm would have likely been stranded on highways, out of power for their vehicles, and out of hope.

“It is fortunate that as of the current moment, electric vehicles constitute only about 100,000, out of nearly 8 million vehicles registered to drive on Florida’s roads. What if they all were electric, the (impractical) dream of greenies?” Thomas Lifton wrote.

He added:

Depending on how heavily loaded they were, even assuming everyone had a full battery charge, cars from southern Florida would start running out of juice after 100 – 250 miles. They would then have to spend hours at recharging stations, which would rapidly be clogged with other cars and trucks waiting their turn since electricity “fill up” can easily take an hour or more, as compared to a couple of minutes for gasoline. Cars waiting to be charged would spill onto the highways, potentially blocking traffic.

Those cars that ran out of juice on the highway would block traffic. Even assuming that emergency service vehicles could get to them (unlikely if the entire fleet were electric cars), towing a portable generator (powered by fossil fuels, of course) and recharging the stalled vehicles would take plenty of time, as well, further blocking traffic.  The stranded cars would, of course, have no air conditioning, no wipers, and no GPS.

The reality is, Lifton opined, highways would no doubt become nothing but long parking lots with passengers trapped wherever their EVs ran out of power. They would be exposed to the ravages of the storm as well as flooding from the storm surges and massive amounts of rain being dropped. There would be nowhere to escape.

“It is a nightmare scenario, and it is perfectly predictable. California and other states have already mandated conversion to an all-electric vehicle fleet,” he added. “When natural disaster strikes and the fleet is electric vehicles, the disaster will be compounded if this mad scheme is carried through.”

The fact is, for the foreseeable future, electric vehicles are not going to be practical for any kind of long-distance travel. Despite the distances being advertised by the car companies of between 180-350 miles, the fact is most EVs will only go an average of 100 or so miles before needing to be recharged — which, again, will take a considerable amount of time. Think of your cell phone when you’re using it a lot: The more you text or the longer you video chat, the quicker the phone becomes drained of power. EVs will not be any different; playing a radio, using headlights, using wipers, and utilizing air conditioning or heating will drain power from the batteries far faster than those devices drain fuel tanks in cars with internal combustion engines.

The fact is, the globalist elite don’t care about “climate change,” they care about control, and that’s why they want everyone to drive an electric vehicle — they know we won’t be able to travel very far with one and they can keep us all corralled in easily controlled cities.

Lifton’s nightmare scenario of trying to escape a deadly storm should convince everyone to push back on this EV nonsense.

Sources include:

Newsom Signs Law Making California “Sanctuary State” for Kids Seeking Sex Changes

Newsom Signs Law Making California “Sanctuary State” for Kids Seeking Sex Changes

California Passes New Law (SB 107). Parents In All 50 States Should Be Terrified

California Wants Your Kids. Jonathan Keller Tells Us About Senate Bill 107

New law aims to make California haven for transgender youth

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 107 into law on Thursday.
The bill provides several safeguards for trans children, from out-of-state attempts to prosecute so-called “gender-affirming care” and other procedures.

One America’s Natasha Sweatte spoke with a clinical psychologist on the potential repercussions these surgeries and treatments can have on kids who are still developing.

Dysconnected: The Real Story Behind the Transgender Explosion



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

California Governor Gavin Newsom on Thursday signed into law a bill giving his state custody over any child who enters its borders, even electronically, in search of sex-change treatments, regardless of the wishes of the child’s parents.

The “gender-affirming health care” law, SB-107, gives California courts “temporary emergency custody” over any child who travels to the Golden State to obtain hormones, drugs, surgery, or other medical interventions to give the child the appearance of the opposite sex. It also protects any adults who accompany the child.

The law prohibits California courts from enforcing out-of-state subpoenas demanding information from healthcare providers about sex-change treatments given to minors over whom those states have jurisdiction.

In addition, it bars law enforcement from arresting or extraditing anyone “pursuant to an out-of-state arrest warrant for violation of another state’s law against providing, receiving, or allowing a child to receive gender-affirming health care and gender-affirming mental health care in this state, if that care is lawful under the laws of this state, to the fullest extent permitted by federal law.”

In other words, Newsom has “awarded himself custody of every child struggling with gender dysphoria, elected himself governor of every state to thwart their own laws that might protect children from harmful and sterilizing gender ‘transitions,’ and dared the entire nation to do anything about it,” Craig DeRoche, CEO and president of the Family Policy Alliance, said in a statement.

The horrific potential consequences of this new law cannot be overstated.

While “the primary victims of this policy … are the children,” it is “also an egregious attack on parents’ fundamental rights,” the Heritage Foundation’s Jay Richards and the Alliance Defending Freedom’s Emilie Kao wrote in a joint opinion piece in Newsweek:

Imagine the parental nightmares this California bill would unleash. A mother in Texas who has sole custody of her daughter could find her custody stripped by a California court who sides with an estranged father who takes the daughter to California to get puberty blockers. No family is off limits, and no court decision is safe, because California has decided that its courts — not those of the family’s home state — should be the final deciders of whether parents are fit to raise their child.

Worse, California is luring minors who believe they were born in the wrong body to abandon their families.

They further note that SB-107 “would also allow California doctors to treat minors still in other states. With the advent of telehealth, a child could get a prescription for hormones from a California doctor while at home in Arkansas or in Florida” regardless of those states’ relevant statutes — and the parents, if they even knew about it, would have no legal recourse.

Yet Newsom had the gall to claim that the law he was signing was about “parental choice” in the face of other states’ laws restricting gender-transition treatments for minors. “Parents know what’s best for their kids,” he said, “and they should be able to make decisions around the health of their children without fear.”

SB-107, however, takes such decisions out of parents’ hands and places them squarely in the hands of minors (and allied adults). Individuals the state of California believes are unfit to drive a car, vote, or buy cigarettes are, it seems, perfectly capable of making life-altering medical decisions — decisions that Richards and Kao point out “can cause severe pain; permanent sexual dysfunction; long-term damage to bones, heart, and blood circulation; and sterility. And there’s no good evidence that they improve kids’ mental and emotional health.” On the contrary, such interventions may well make matters worse.

In short, California’s new law is a “political abuse of science,” in the words of The New American’s David Kelly.

The good news is that SB-107 is unlikely to stand up to legal challenges. As Kelly and others have observed, its disregard for other states’ statutes runs directly counter to the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause. One state simply cannot override another state’s duly passed laws, no matter how unjust officials of the former state believe them to be.

Whether SB-107 is struck down or not, it is yet another step in the radical Left’s ongoing war on families, faith, and facts.

Michigan Mother Sues Local School Board for Violating Her First Amendment Rights

A Macomb County mother is suing the Chippewa Valley School Board after members of the board emailed the department of justice and her employer complaining about her behavior at school board meetings. At the height of the pandemic, school board meetings across the state became heated and sometimes ugly. Parents dissatisfied with no in-person learning and or angry about mask policies. Sandra Hernden was one of them.



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

A Michigan police officer and mother of three children is suing the Chippewa Valley School Board over accusations that the board violated her First Amendment rights. Sandra Hernden challenged the school board on issues related to the Covid-19 pandemic and claimed that the school district was responsible for a downward academic and social spiral that one of her sons — a special needs child — experienced as a result of the district’s long-term move from in-person learning to remote learning at the beginning of the pandemic in the spring of 2020.

When the district began the fall term in 2020 still in remote learning mode, Hernden decided it was her duty to speak out against the school board’s policies. And that’s where her troubles began.

“What happens when you try to protect your special needs son? What happens when you confront the life-destroying policies that school boards passed during the pandemic?” Hernden asked rhetorically.

“I’ll tell you what happens. The school board ignores you, insults you, and attacks you.”

Upon seeing the toll that remote learning was taking on her sons, Hernden did what many parents do when they have problems with the school district. She complained and did so with vigor, to the point of showing up at school board meetings and letting the school board know exactly what their policies were doing to her children.

The board’s response, according to Hernden, was to go into attack mode, calling her comments “veiled racism,” complaining to Hernden’s employer, and even referring her conduct at school board meetings to Joe Biden’s Department of Justice for review. The school board also complained that Hernden was “harassing” board members, and further claimed that her conduct was unbecoming a police officer.

Hernden’s employer, the Hazel Park Police Department, investigated the claims and found that she hadn’t violated any department rules. She was not disciplined.

Then, on September 29, Hernden fought back, filing suit against the Chippewa Valley School Board for violating her First Amendment rights, among other things.

“For two years, I have been demoralized, humiliated, discredited, and demeaned,” Hernden said. “I can live with a lot of things and be called a lot of names, but none of this will stop me from fighting for my children. I’m bringing this case not just for my family, but for all the families like me who feel they have no voice.”

Hernden claims that she was interrupted at school board meetings and was not allowed to give her opinions, being cut off from sharing her thoughts. She cautioned the board that, perhaps, its actions against her might be illegal.

Recall that in October of last year, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland issued an infamous memo calling for the FBI to “convene meetings with federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial leaders in each federal judicial district within 30 days of the issuance of this memorandum. These meetings will facilitate the discussion of strategies for addressing threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff, and will open dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment, and response.”

In effect, Garland was calling on the FBI to treat concerned parents at school board meetings as if they were terrorist suspects.

The day after that memo was made public, the school board president, Frank Bednard, allegedly sent an email to the Biden Department of Justice.

“This woman, Sandra Hernden, comes to every meeting to harass our board, administration, and community who oppose her views,” Bednard’s letter read.

The school board president accused Hernden of being part of a group of citizens whose “threats and demeanor are so intimidating, no community members who oppose their message will come to the meeting to speak because they are afraid of what this group would do to them for standing up to them.”

“Anything that could be done to curb this behavior by these people would be greatly appreciated by our board, administration, and our community,” Bednard concluded.

So, in effect, the school board “tattled” on Hernden to the Justice Department. Steve Delie, an attorney with the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, which is representing Hernden, obviously disagreed with Bednard’s conclusion.

“No parent should have to fear for their livelihood or their liberty because they stood up for their children,” Delie said “We hope that this case empowers parents to have the courage to speak out for what they believe is best for their children.”

Buckle Up: Gas Prices Likely to Rise Even More as OPEC+ Discusses ‘Historic’ Cut in Production



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

After more than a year of rising gas prices, it was nice to see them go down a bit over the summer. It wasn’t enough, but every little bit helped. All the while, the Biden administration crowed about gas prices as though a slight drop after sharp rises was all part of the plan.

Many of us believed that prices would trend back upward eventually and recent weeks have proven that notion correct, as oil companies started preparing for the switch to winter gas formulas and Hurricane Ian bore down on Florida.

And now it looks like even higher gas prices are in the works. OPEC+, the coalition of the traditional OPEC nations and other oil-producing nations, is meeting in Vienna this week to discuss production policy. CNBC reports that these oil producers are “reportedly considering their largest output cut since the start of the coronavirus pandemic this week, a historic move that energy analysts say could push oil prices back toward triple digits.”

It’s the first meeting of OPEC+ since 2020, so experts believe that this summit is intended to lead to big moves like a cut in supply.

“The OPEC ministers are not going to come to Austria for the first time in two years to do nothing. So there’s going to be a cut of some historic kind,” Dan Pickering, CIO of Pickering Energy Partners, told CNBC.

This move could mean a production cut of a million barrels per day, although Pickering expects the cut to be around half a million. And since the U.S. is no longer a net energy exporter thanks to the Biden administration, that can only mean that prices at the pump will rise.

Related: Biden Washes His Hands of Gas Prices Now That They’re Going Back Up

Because the OPEC+ countries are having trouble reaching their production targets as it is, some analysts think that the potential cuts in output are necessary and won’t affect prices all that much.

“It is probably also the reason why they are meeting face-to-face this week in Vienna because it is potentially a highly controversial decision that they may take. But I think the impact is probably going to be less than what the market is looking for,” Ole Hansen of Saxo Bank told CNBC.

However, other factors could push gas prices up.

“We’re going to see more support from the supply side if sanctions kick in from Europe towards the end of the year [and] as the U.S. [Strategic Petroleum Reserve] begins to shut down its deliveries in November,” Pickering told CNBC.

Regardless of what OPEC+ decides to do, Pickering believes that we’ll be seeing gas prices go up in the coming weeks and months.

“OPEC is no particular friend of oil price softness, gasoline prices going down … despite what people will say, we’re gonna see some pretty sticky energy inflation as we move forward over the next couple of years,” he said.

Of course, we know how the Biden administration will respond to rising gas prices. We’ll hear more flippant calls that the solution to everything is to buy expensive electric vehicles. The White House will double down on the green, anti-fossil fuel rhetoric. All the while, the pinch of higher gas prices will hurt Americans, especially those in rural or lower-income areas.

If there’s an upside to rising gas prices, it’s that they could come back to haunt the Democrats for years to come.

GIORGIA MELONI, New Italian prime minister puts globalist elite on notice, says her people are taking country back from ‘New World Order’

Image: New Italian prime minister puts globalist elite on notice, says her people are taking country back from ‘New World Order’



Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

(Natural News) Brand-new Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has put the globalist elite on notice during a fiery speech following her election victory Sunday in which she said she plans to “dismantle the New World Order.”

Meloni, who is no stranger to standing up for ordinary Italians, warned the tiny global elite who have stacked the deck against billions of ordinary citizens in dozens of countries for decades that “our main enemy today is the globalist drift of those who view identity and all its forms to be an evil to overcome” and who “constantly ask to shift real power away from the people to supernational entities headed by supposedly enlightened elites,” according to a report by NewsPunch.

“Let us be clear in our mind because we did not fight against and defeat communism in order to replace it with a new international regime, but to permit independent nation states once again to defend the freedom, identity, and sovereignty of their peoples,” she added.

A partial transcript of her victory speech helps explain why the globalist leftist elite is freaking out:

Why is the family an enemy? Why is the family so frightening? There is a single answer to all these questions. Because it defines us. Because it is our identity. Because everything that defines us is now an enemy for those who would like us to no longer have an identity and to simply be perfect consumer slaves.

And so they attack national identity, they attack religious identity, they attack gender identity, they attack family identity. I can’t define myself as: Italian, Christian, woman, or mother. No. I must be citizen x, gender x, parent 1, parent 2. I must be a number. Because when I am only a number, when I no longer have an identity or roots, then I will be the perfect slave at the mercy of financial speculators. The perfect consumer…[But] we will defend it.

We will defend God, country, and family. Those things disgust people so much. We will do it to defend our freedom. Because we will never be slaves and simple consumers at the mercy of financial speculators.

That is our mission. That is why I came here today. Chesterton wrote, more than a century ago. .. “Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer.” That time has arrived. We are ready.

She literally talks about Christianity, the core family (mother and father), the fact that there are only two genders, and she pledges to put her own country above all others, in a very Trump-like fashion.

Conservatives in the West are celebrating her victory and, more importantly, how she achieved it.

“Here’s what Giorgia Meloni says at campaign rallies. ‘I am Giorgia. I am a woman. I am a mother. I am Italian, I am Christian. You will not take that away from me!’ For this, the Left calls her a fascist and an heir to Mussolini. Italians don’t believe it, and we shouldn’t either,” filmmaker and documentarian Dinesh D’Souza wrote on Twitter.

“In Italy, Giorgia Meloni is called centrodesta’ which means ‘center-right.’ But the Western media calls her ‘far-right,’ which is more revealing of the Western media’s place on the ideological spectrum. From the vantage point of the far left, Centro Destra appears to be far right,” D’Souza added.

Sources include: