The U.S. opioid crisis has been making headlines again this week after pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson was fined $572 for fuelling the epidemic in Oklahoma in a historic ruling. As Statista's Niall McCarthy notes, last year, drug overdoses claimed more than 68,000 American lives and 47,000 of those deaths involved an opioid.
Even though heroin, prescription opioids and synthetic opioids like
fentanyl are receiving most of the attention, deaths from other drugs
like cocaine and methamphetamine are increasing.
A new report from the RAND Corporation has shed light on just how many people use illicit drugs across America as well as how much they pay for them.
You will find more infographics at Statista In 2016 alone, people in the U.S. spent an estimated $146 billion on cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine. Adding
RAND's figures together from 2006 to 2016 would mean total spending on
illegal drugs over the course of the decade was nearly $1.5 trillion.
Out of all four drugs in 2016, users spent the most on illicit marijuana - $52 billion. The market for the illegal green stuff is around the size of the cocaine and methamphetamine markets combined.
Heroin has the second highest financial outlay ($43 billon) followed by
methamphetamine ($27 billion) and cocaine ($24 billion).
Marc Morano of Climate Depot called in to talk about the trans-Atlantic
journey of Greta Thunberg, the teenaged climate alarmist underwritten by
massive corporations looking to make a green buck. Please share this.
We have never seen anything quite like this. This week the skies above Brazil’s largest city turned black
in the middle of the afternoon due to the massive wildfires that are
currently raging in that country. But the wildfires aren’t
actually happening anywhere near São Paulo. In fact, the smoke that
turned the skies black actually came from fires that were happening more than 1,000 miles away. Can you imagine how powerful the fires have to be in order to do that?
And it isn’t just Brazil – right now horrific fires are scorching vast stretches of our planet from South America all the way up to the Arctic. Some of the fires are producing so much smoke that you can actually see it from space. And in the process, irreversible damage is being done to our ecosystems.
I know that this number is hard to believe, but there have been more than 72,000 wildfires in Brazil so far in 2019,
and most of those fires are happening in the Amazon rainforest. I
understand that many of you may not care what happens in Brazil, but you
should. Approximately 60 percent of the entire Amazon rainforest is in
Brazilian territory, and that rainforest produces approximately 20
percent of all the oxygen in our atmosphere. So essentially the “lungs of the Earth” are being burned away right in front of our eyes…
The fires are burning at the highest rate since the country’s space
research center, the National Institute for Space Research (known by the
abbreviation INPE), began tracking them in 2013, the center said
Tuesday.
There have been 72,843 fires in Brazil this year, with more than half
in the Amazon region, INPE said. That’s more than an 80% increase
compared with the same period last year.
The Amazon is often referred to as the planet’s lungs, producing 20% of the oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Every minute of every single day, an average of 1½ soccer fields of Amazon rainforest are being wiped out. This is an ongoing crisis that hasn’t been getting nearly the attention that it deserves in the United States. You will find more infographics at Statista But when the skies above Sao Paulo suddenly turned completely black at three in the afternoon on Monday, that set off a social media frenzy…
São Paulo’s skies were blackened for roughly an hour at around 3 p.m.
Monday due to raging fires throughout the region and weather conditions
that pushed particulate matter over the city, setting off intense
speculation on social networks about the reason why the day was
seemingly transformed into night.
Videos and images posted by local residents depicted disturbing
scenes of pedestrians walking under black skies and cars driving in the
mid-afternoon with their headlights on as the continued fires throughout
the Amazon rainforest drove the hashtags #PrayforAmazonia and #PrayforAmazonas to worldwide viral status.
Sadly, these fires are not going to end any time soon. It is being
reported that more than 9,000 fires are raging at the moment, and it is
being estimated that 640 million acres have been affected by those fires.
Yes, you read that number correctly. 640 million acres.
Meanwhile, 50 large wildfires are burning in a dozen U.S. states right now. The worst fires are happening in Alaska, where “more than 400,000 acres are currently burning”…
Multiple fires are burning near the state’s biggest city, and
firefighters have called in assistance from the Lower 48. More than
400,000 acres are currently burning, and one of the biggest concerns is
the McKinley Fire, which has destroyed at least 50 structures about 100
miles north of Anchorage. Officials with the Matanuska-Susitna Borough
declared a state of emergency, and firefighters hoped that calmer
weather predicted for Wednesday could permit evacuees to return.
When I think of Alaska, I think of a place that is bitterly
cold. But apparently it is hot enough this year for wildfires to sweep
across hundreds of thousands of acres.
And we are also witnessing highly unusual wildfires in the Arctic in 2019…
The Arctic as a whole has seen unusually high wildfire activity this
summer, Parrington said, including areas such as Greenland that
typically don’t see fires. One estimate found that the amount of carbon
dioxide emitted from fires burning within the Arctic Circle in in June
2019 was greater than all of the CO2 released in the same month from
2010 through to 2018 put together.
To me, it is very strange to be talking about “wildfires in the
Arctic”, but we have entered a period of time when our entire definition
of “normal” is going to change.
Last winter we experienced one of the coldest winters in ages, during
the first half of this year the middle of the U.S. experienced
unprecedented rainfall and flooding, and now we are being told that last
month was the hottest July ever recorded…
The average global temperature in July was 1.71 degrees F above the
20th-century average of 60.4 degrees, making it the hottest July in the
140-year record, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Centers for
Environmental Information.
The previous hottest month on record was July 2016. Nine of the 10
hottest recorded Julys have occurred since 2005; the last five years
have ranked as the five hottest. Last month was also the 43rd
consecutive July and 415th consecutive month with above-average global
temperatures.
Unfortunately, many believe that this is just the beginning. Global weather patterns are going haywire, and so the extremes that we have seen so far may just be the tip of the iceberg.
The environment that we depend upon for life every moment of every
day is being shaken, and many are deeply alarmed about what is happening
to the Earth. Each day it is being destroyed a little bit more, and
the clock is ticking…
The federal government announced on August 9, 2019, that it will be
granting full duty remissions on illegally dumped fabricated steel from
China to supply two liquid natural gas (LNG) projects located in British
Columbia. Their recent action was announced with their assurance that
“trade barriers would not be permitted to stand in the way of these
historic private sector investments”.
The two projects involved are LNG Canada and Woodfibre LNG, both located
on the coast of B.C. The partners in LNG Canada are made up of a
consortium of investors of which include China. These two LNG projects
will be#modularized, meaning they will be built in smaller shippable
pieces with all the equipment and components preinstalled. The modules
will be connected on site, requiring very few construction workers.
Essentially, in doing so, the largest project ever in the history of
Canada will be handed over to Chinese businesses and workers.
“The announcement was very disappointing,” says Ed Whalen, President
& CEO of the Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (CISC). “These
two projects, if done in Canada, would have created hundreds of
thousands of construction jobs for all trades across the country.
Projects like these employ skilled workers from all over Canada and not
just in the local area. This is a hundreds-of-thousands-of-jobs-lost
kind of mistake.”
The duties on fabricated structural steel have been implemented by the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) under the Special Import
Measure Act (SIMA) after proof that China, South Korea and Spain were
found to be illegally dumping into Canada. An appeal of the CITT’s
decision is currently still pending in the Federal Court of Appeal.
“The government has called SIMA and the rulings of the CITT ‘trade
barriers’ in their announcement! For the Government of Canada to call
their own fair trade process a trade barrier is dumbfounding,” says
Whalen. This statement will send shock waves across all Canadian
industries contemplating future capital investment and their viability
in Canada.”
Last fall, the federal government provided $375 million of taxpayers’
money to LNG Canada to encourage the project to go ahead. Interestingly,
the maximum duty on steel from China would have been $375 million in
total cost.
“For the Liberal government to double down with a remission was not
necessary. They got their duty money last fall and now they get it
twice,” says Whalen. “Minister Morneau also stated last fall the
government would let the legal process take its course before any
further action by government. The Liberal remission appears to be a
pre-emptive move to override or influence the courts.”
Modules are custom for each construction project. Canada has been
assembling modules for many years with the projects like those in
Alberta. The argument that Canada does not or can’t do this work is
false. What is true is that international oil and gas companies want the
lowest cost, China’s illegal dumping and subsidizing provides that, the
government of Canada will offer the legal framework to allow this to
happen and Canadian construction workers no longer have access to
projects in Canada.
BACKGROUND
The CITT levied trade duties against China in June 2017. China was
proven to be illegally dumping fabricated steel into Canada at up to 48
per cent, in addition to illegally subsidizing its industry at up to
$2,300 per metric tonne. Since then, a number of LNG companies have
requested waivers on these duties in order to complete any related
projects with the use of illegally dumped Chinese fabricated structural
steel and modules.
ABOUT CISC
The Canadian Institute of Steel Construction (CISC) is Canada’s voice
for the steel construction industry, providing leadership in sustainable
design, construction, efficiency, quality and innovation.
The Canadian steel construction sector is a vibrant $5 billion industry, which employs over 130,000 people in its supply chain.
Opinion: The average recent immigrant in Canada imposes a fiscal burden of $5,300 annually. A lot of roads, affordable housing and cleaner environment could be purchased with the money spent on poorly selected new immigrants who don't carry their share of the fiscal load.
In a recent campaign speech, Maxime Bernier, leader of the People’s Party of Canada, cited the results of one of our studies, which showed that recent immigrants are imposing a heavy fiscal burden on Canadians. He used this information to justify his plan to reduce future levels of immigration.
The CBC had journalist Jonathon Gatehouse do a “fact check” of Bernier’s claim about the fiscal burden. In a publication sponsored by the CBC, he concludes that this claim is “false.” Since this verdict implies that our study also reached false conclusions, we feel compelled to do our own fact check of the analysis produced by Gatehouse.
The author makes much of the well-known fact that immigrants have a positive effect on aggregate national income (GDP), which says nothing about the fiscal burden. He also fails to note that recent immigrants have lowered Canada’s per capita income since, according to official statistics, they have lower average incomes than other Canadians.
He also cites a number of published studies and data he considers relevant. They involve well-known facts and again tell us nothing about the fiscal burden. For example, he notes that the gap in the unemployment rate between recent immigrants and native-born Canadian males has narrowed, but neglects to mention that this always happens when an economic boom creates increased demand for labour and leads to the hiring of previously unemployable workers.
Another statistic Gatehouse cited is that the wages received by immigrants who entered the labour market in 2017 were the highest ever. These wages have indeed been increasing every year, along with the wages of all new labour force entrants. The fact that the average incomes of immigrants who arrived in 2006 increased consistently over the following 10 years simply reflects the normal increase in incomes of all workers through time due to increased skills and work experience. As working immigrants go through this cycle, their average income rises relative to the average income of Canadians of all ages.
Estimating the fiscal burden immigrants impose on Canadians requires data on the average taxes paid and government benefits received by immigrants. Data from the 2016 Census also cited by Gatehouse shows that the average income of recent immigrants aged 25-54 continues to fall short of that of non-immigrants, which means they continue to pay less in taxes on average.
In our most recent study we used basic statistics from the previous census and the National Household Survey to estimate that because of Canada’s progressive income tax system, recent immigrants paid much lower income taxes than non-immigrants. We added to this amount other taxes related to income and wealth, such as the GST and capital gains taxes, and concluded that in 2008-09, recent immigrants on average paid $13,100 in tax compared with $18,000 paid by other Canadians, yielding a shortfall of $4,900 per year.
The government publishes statistics on how much it spends to provide different types of benefits. In the absence of all the required information, we assumed that immigrants received the same benefits on average as did other Canadians. This assumption seems reasonable since nearly all spending was on universal health care, social insurance, education, security and conservation of the environment.
In response to criticism, we estimated that with their lower incomes immigrants benefit less from government spending on protection but, because they have more children on average, benefit more from spending on education. The net effect of these adjustments is that immigrants on average receive $414 more than non-immigrants in benefits.
Gatehouse noted that in our study we had not taken account of welfare and other social benefits received by immigrants, which some believe to be excessive and others believe to be less than what non-immigrants receive. We deliberately avoided this controversial issue and assumed simply that both groups received the same average amount of such benefits. The greatest differences between recent immigrants and others is on the tax, not the spending side of the government accounts.
When we combined our estimates of taxes paid and benefits received we found that the average recent immigrant in Canada imposes a fiscal burden of $5,300 annually.
According to government statistics, in 2010 the number of recent immigrants (since 1985) was about 3.7 million. Multiplying this number by $5,300 brings the estimated fiscal burden that year to $20 billion. Since then the stock of immigrants has increased by 250,000 a year and raised the annual fiscal burden in 2018 to over $30 billion.
Canada needs a full discussion of its immigration policy that considers both its benefits, which are discussed by politicians and the media all the time, but also its very real costs, which involve not just the fiscal burden but also traffic congestion, overcrowding of hospitals, schools and recreational facilities, deteriorating environment and lack of affordable housing, which governments cannot address in part because of the fiscal burden. A lot of roads, affordable housing and cleaner environment could be purchased with that $30 billion.
Herbert Grubel is professor emeritus of economics at Simon Fraser University. Patrick Grady is with global-economics.ca
"In Sweden 6 out of seven newspapers are Jewish owned.."
"Bonnier (The Bonnier Group) The TV Station LNK, is owned by the
Jewish Bonnier family, based in Sweden. Bonnier is a taken name;
originally the family was named Hirschel. Not only is the Bonnier family
Jewish and not only do they own LNK, but they are the by far most
influential media group in Sweden and in Finland. They are very
influential in Denmark as well. They are also involved in the Baltic
countries (LNK in Lithuania) the UK, Germany, Poland and other
countries. Of the seven largest daily newspapers in Sweden, the seven
with a daily circulation of over 100,000, the Bonnier family owns four,
Dagens Nyheter (the Daily News), Expressen (the Express), Sydsvenska
Dagbladet (the Southern Swedish Daily News) and Dagens Industri (the
Industry of Today).
The largest of the private TV channels in Sweden is TV4. The Bonnier
family directly holds 21,6% of TV4 and through their ownership of the
Finnish based Alma media company they hold an additional 23,4%,
totalling 45% which amounts to a virtual control.
As head of TV4 we find Jan Scherman (Jewish). Jan Scherman's daughter
Clara Scherman is chief buyer for TV4. A man with an (Jewish?)
Hungarian name Hans Isoz heads TV4 Vision.
Through Alma Media, Bonnier also controls MTV3, the most popular
channel in Finland with 39,1% of the total viewing time (in 2001) and
Subtv, the third largest commercial television channel in Finland,
aiming mainly at young adults. Bonnier also employs the Jews Sven Irving
(now TV4 News), Artur Ringart (TV4) and Peter Sommerstein (Sydsvenska
Dagbladet).
In Finland, Bonnier owns 23% of MTV in that country. In Finland,
Bonnier controls the leading daily Iltalehti and Kauppalehti, Finland's
largest business media with a circulation of 85.000 per day. Bonnier
controls the printing house Lehdentekijät, that produces 40 regularly
published magazines in Finland.
In addition to that they own five regional papers, 15 local papers
and nine free-distribution papers in Finland alone. They further control
the Baltic News Service, the leading news bureau in the Baltic region,
providing the world with news about the Baltic with a Bonnier touch.
Peter Hjörne (Jewish) Beside the Bonnier family in Sweden there is
the Peter Hjörne (real name Kaplan), owner and chief editor of
Göteborgs-Posten (the Gothenburg Post; GP), the fourth largest newspaper
in Sweden with a circulation of 253,700, reaching 600,000 readers
daily.
GP is furthermore the only newspaper in Sweden's second largest city,
Gothenburg. Hjörne is also the owner of two local newspapers,
Bohuslänningen (32.400) and Strömstads tidning (5,200); both distributed
in the Swedish north-west coast area. In addition he controls 22% of
Liberala tidningars konsortium (the consortium of liberal newspapers)
and thereby Nerike Allehanda (The eighth largest newspaper in Sweden
with a circulation of 66,300), Motala Tidning/Vadstena Tidning (12,800),
Bergslagsposten (10,600) and Nya Ludvika tidning (9,500).
Finally he also holds 9% of Hallandsposten (31,000). Peter Hjörne is
the son of a sister of another infuential Swedish Media ***: Per
Gyllenhammer (former top boss of Volvo).
Hjörne pays schoolchildren to watch Jewish propaganda Hjörne is a
part of the old Jewish establishment in Gothenburg and has his way to
influence the Gentiles of that city. For instance, when the *** Steven
Spielberg's movie Schindler's List reached the screens Hjörne personally
paid so all senior high school students would see it.
The Bonnier family owns 30% and Hjörne owns 10% of The Swedish
News-agency Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå (the Swedish Central News Agency),
the main news source for the none-local news stories in most minor
papers in Sweden.
Robert Aschberg (Jewish) owns the largest production company in
Sweden called Strix Television and produces programs for every major
channel, especially TV3 where almost all programs that aren't Hollywood
produced sitcoms, talk shows (Ricky Lake and Jerry Springer [Both are
Jewish]) or bad movies come from Strix.
It was Strix, by the way, that first came up with the idea of the show Survivor, now broadcasted also in the USA.
Aschberg himself is the head of several of these usually noisy and
chaotic shows and has thus been called Sweden's Michel Friedman .
His maternal grandfather is the banker Olof Aschberg who helped
finance the Russian Revolution and his brother, Richard Aschberg, works
at Aftonbladet (the Evening Post). Robert Aschberg is furthermore an
important financer of eXpo, a Swedish version of the ADL, even if it is
not an.."
A recent leaked audio of a New York Times employee town hall
includes Editor-in-Chief Dean Baquet telling his staff of propagandists
to ditch the Russian collusion nonsense and start focusing on President
Trump’s “racism.”
During the town hall Baquet is heard congratulating his staff for
winning two Pulitzer Prizes on the fake Russia collusion story. The
Times obviously has no remorse for pushing the biggest media hoax on the
country for the last three years.
Baquet congratulated his staff for pushing this monstrous lie.
“We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well.
Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a
different story.”
Byron York reported on the leaked audio in The Examiner:
In the beginning of the Trump administration, the Times geared up to
cover the Russia affair, Baquet explained. “Chapter 1 of the story of
Donald Trump, not only for our newsroom but, frankly, for our readers,
was: Did Donald Trump have untoward relationships with the Russians,
and was there obstruction of justice? That was a really hard story, by
the way, let’s not forget that. We set ourselves up to cover that
story. I’m going to say it. We won two Pulitzer Prizes covering that
story. And I think we covered that story better than anybody else.”
But then came the Mueller report, with special counsel Robert Mueller
failing to establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated
with Russia to fix the 2016 election. “The day Bob Mueller walked off
that witness stand, two things happened,” Baquet continued. “Our readers
who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy ####, Bob
Mueller is not going to do it.’ And Donald Trump got a little emboldened
politically, I think. Because, you know, for obvious reasons. And I
think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about
started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago. We’re a little tiny bit
flat-footed. I mean, that’s what happens when a story looks a certain
way for two years. Right?”
Baquet used the gentlest terms possible — “the story changed” — but
the fact is, the conspiracy-coordination allegation the Times had
devoted itself to pursuing turned out to be false. Beyond that,
Democrats on Capitol Hill struggled to press an obstruction case against
the president. The Trump-Russia hole came up dry.
Now, Baquet continued, “I think that we’ve got to change.” The Times
must “write more deeply about the country, race, and other divisions.”
Dear President Trump/Senators,
The latest mass shootings have brought several things to the fore. America doesn’t have a gun problem we have a people problem…a culture problem.
I’m going to put this discussion into two categories – demonizing by name-calling and gun control. The core element of political correctness is killing free speech.
The political correctness police view any speech they don’t agree with
as hate speech and by the political correctness rules, such speech must
be condemned first and then eliminated, even if by force. The college
campuses of America have been the laboratory for this anti-American
lunacy. Political correctness is censorship and a direct violation of
the First Amendment. These censorship threats and name-calling are
designed to compel the opposition to shut up.
The charge of “racist” has been the hammer used by the Left
to shut off discussion of any issue that makes the Left uncomfortable.
The President has been called racist by every liberal pundit on TV and
in print and every Democrat leader and candidate for president. The
President is not a racist. There is NO evidence that he is a racist.
Additionally, the term racist has been applied to every supporter of the
President.
The term racist has now lost its true edge because of its indiscriminate and wide-spread use.
The new cudgel to hammer the President and all of his supporters is
as white supremacist or white nationalist. I’m very active in a lot of
activities here in East Tennessee ranging from a 3000 member gun club,
to a huge charity that raises money for veterans causes, to a 7000
member church, to a 300+ member car club. I’m 70 years old and I’ve
never met a white supremacist or white nationalist.
Whoever these people
are, they are in the underbelly of America and are nothing more than
gnats in the atmosphere. Calling the president these names is a
despicable act and beyond reprehensible. Now we have the Speaker of the
House and Democrat presidential candidates saying the white nationalists
are an existential threat to the U.S. This is sheer lunacy. This is the type of mental illness that should exclude these people from having guns.
Sadly, few Republicans have stood up for our president. Republicans have no spine but what about human decency?
As a loyal and patriotic American how can you stand mute when our
president is attacked in such a vile manner? How about debunking whole
white nationalists as existential threat to the U.S.? But sadly,
Republicans are mute.
Now to the issue of the siren call of gun control.The cause of these, and other mass shootings was NOT guns; it is our sick society.
Most of the perpetrators legally obtained their guns. Laws against
murder, illegal use of firearms, illegal discharge of firearms, assault
with deadly weapons and in California transporting a firearm across
state lines that is illegal in the Golden State; all of these laws, and
no doubt many others, were violated. None of those statutes prevented
these crimes, something nobody seems willing to discuss.
We have a society where violence is glorified.Go
to a movie or even watch television and the violence is appalling. I
refuse to believe that video games don’t contribute to the violence in
our culture. There are many games where killing is the score by which
you win. Denying this is putting your head in the sand. The same
Hollywood that advocates for gun confiscation are the same Hollywood
that glorifies guns and killing in their products.
Let’s address so-called “assault rifles.” What is an “assault rifle?”
When anti-gun rights Sen. Diane Feinstein was writing the weapons ban
bill, they needed to call this class of weapons something scary, so they
called them “assault weapons.” This is a made-up term conjured solely
for the purpose of scaring people. I spent 30 years in the Army as an
infantryman. We didn’t have assault weapons. So the very term “assault
weapons” is a product of the gun control crowd. As Feinstein and her
staff were writing the “Assault Weapons Ban,” they had a gun catalog and
went through the pages picking out pictures of scary-looking guns.
Their ignorance of guns is just astounding.
Now we have gun banners talking about “weapons of war” and
“killing machines” to add to the fear and apprehension created by
“assault weapons” naming convention. The AR-15 is used by millions and millions of Americans for sport, hunting, and home defense.
It is NOT a weapon of war or a killing machine. As a professional
soldier, I would never go to war with any gun I could buy commercially.
The Left has been able to define the language and then police
violators of the language via political correctness. The gun control
crowd has defined “assault weapons” as scary weapons, and scary weapons
are weapons of war and killing machines and thus should not be in the
hands of the citizenry. And Republicans are mute.
If Republicans want to lose the presidency and the Senate and the
House, then pass universal background checks and “Red Flag” laws. If you
want to cave, to surrender, to the insane mania of the media and the
Left and pass these laws, then you will lose millions like me,
law-abiding, freedom-loving, gun owners.
Let’s talk about “universal background checks”
as the left dictates. They want the government to control all gun
transactions. This is naked government control of the right to keep and
bear arms. We have background checks!! The process works when it is
applied correctly. There is nothing that can be done if some government
agency doesn’t due their due diligence and put the required data into
the system. This applies with the current background check system and
any new system that the Left would dictate. By the way, there is NO gun
show loophole. If someone at a gun show wants to sell a gun to a
customer, they are required, by law, to run a background check. There is nothing that can be done to prevent someone from selling a gun illegally, now or with some “enhanced background check.”
Additionally, the lie that is frequently told that “90% of Americans,
even NRA members, support enhanced background checks” is a true
fabrication. Let’s enforce the current laws, including the background
check system.
It is worth time mentioning that the Constitution is a document
written to preserve individual rights and liberty and to LIMIT the
government oversight of those individual rights and liberty. The
Founding Fathers felt so strongly about the God-given rights enumerated
in the Bill of Rights that they listed them. These rights are a sign
post that says, “government hands off.” The government is forbidden to
get between these rights and the American citizens.
The government has already gotten between the citizen and the
Second Amendment. It started with the National Firearms Act of 1934. These
laws were serious infringements of the Second Amendment. Remember the
words of the Constitution in the Second Amendment, “…shall not be
infringed.” How many Republican presidents and Republican majorities in
Congress have turned a blind eye to these egregious infringements on our
right to keep and bear arms? If you don’t know about the histories of
impacts of these laws, then you are derelict in your duties.
When “universal background checks” was explored by the Obama Administration it was defeated by the outcry of the citizenry. As
envisioned by the Obama Administration, their “universal background
checks” would control every transaction by a gun owner. If I wanted to
sell a gun to a friend, I would have had to go to a licensed gun dealer,
pay a fee, and then the buyer would have to undergo a background check.
Obama’s own Justice Department produced a document that said the only
way for “universal background checks” to work was to have a gun
registry. My gun is my property, and as such, I have a right to sell it
without asking permission from the government. A logical extension is a
government requiring books to have serial numbers and controlling their
distribution and sale.
So stay away from some form of “universal background checks.” Now to “Red Flag laws.” Seventeen states have some
form of these laws, but only a couple of them even mention mental
health. None of us wants mentally imbalanced people or terrorists to
have guns. But these laws are a slippery slope to another way for the
government to get between a citizen and their right to keep and bear
arms. The gun grabbers are salivating about this. They want the
government determining who is eligible to exercise their Second
Amendment rights. The Left wants some type of process like was in the
movie Minority Report, where the government reads the minds of citizens
and takes actions to arrest the citizen before they committed some
crime. Of course, reading the minds is a bit of hyperbole, but these
laws would have government people across the country determining that
someone who tweeted, made a Facebook post, wrote an email is a danger to
society and they raid that person’s home and take their weapons. This
then becomes a Fourth Amendment violation. So we start with a government
deciding that something said by a citizen is unacceptable, violating
the First Amendment, the government then violates the Fourth Amendment
and deprives a citizen of their Second Amendment right.
Another part of this slippery slope is who reports the
“unstable” citizen and then who decides whether the accusation is valid?
Maybe a neighbor doesn’t like my MAGA hat and believes the crazy
rhetoric of the media, and thus, I’m a white nationalist and therefore a
threat and call the Sheriff. The Sheriff then conducts a
“no-knock” warrant and breaks in my door in the middle of the night. I
think this is a real break-in and defend myself, and I am, or an officer
is shot. Imaginary? Not so, this happened recently to some unlucky
homeowner. Who’s to blame? Who will be held accountable? If you pass
these types of laws, these scenarios will play out over the nation. “Red Flag laws” are another intrusion/infringement of citizens’ rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
In summary:
American citizens, simply because of their American citizenship, hold
God-given rights to defend self and family - and that includes the
right to own and use firearms. That God-given right is enshrined in the
Constitution, as the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment doesn’t allow for the government to determine
whether some have rights to own firearms, versus others who don’t.
Seriously: Do we really want government holding this power?
What about the path these “red flag” laws would take under a leftist administration, under Democratic control?
“Red flag” laws bring too many unknowns.
Millions of honest gun owners who didn’t use their firearms for
mayhem have good reason to feel they are being penalized for crimes they
did not commit. This is not an issue about guns; it’s about rights.
These laws are repealing the Bill of Rights one chunk at a time.
When are Republicans going to stand up and defend the Bill of
Rights? The President campaigned on and has emphasized his promise to
defend the Second Amendment.
Sharing this data from a friend who has researched these statistics
thoroughly. There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms,
and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as
of June 22, 2016 (the last searchable census numbers) Do the math:
0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each
year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never
told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in
perspective as compared to other causes of death:
-65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws.
-15% are by police.
-17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally
ill persons.
-3% are accidental discharge deaths.
So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to
5,100. Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation:
-480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
-344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
-333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
-119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of
those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that
is the root cause. This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of
the nation, or about 75 deaths per state -an average because some
States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had
1,169 and Alabama had 1.
Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but
it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number
of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all
cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something
other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other
deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the
commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery,
death, rape, assault are all done by criminals. It is ludicrous to
think that criminals will obey laws. That is why they are called
criminals.
But what about other deaths each year?
Nearly 75% of all deaths in the United States are attributed to just
10 causes, with the top three of these accounting for over 50 percent
of all deaths. Over the last 5 years, the main causes of death in the
U.S. have remained fairly consistent.
Guns don’t even make the top ten list. Not to mention:
-40,000+ die from a drug overdose–THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
-36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.
-34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths
even if you include suicide).
-200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical
errors. You are safer walking in the worst areas of Chicago than you
are when you are in a hospital!
-710,000 people die per year from heart disease. Where is the real war
on fast food? Why are we not teaching healthy eating in schools?
So what is the point? If the liberals and the anti-gun movement
focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in
cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all
gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10%
reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total number of gun
deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides -Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions! So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns?
It’s pretty simple: (to Steven Waugh’s point)
Taking away guns gives control to governments. The founders of this
nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power
may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to
disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand
that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.
Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S.
Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs. So the next time
someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look
at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: “Before a
standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.”
Will 2019 continue the trend? The other day I was talking with a close friend, and he pointed out to me that all throughout history years that end in 9 have tended to be times of great change and upheaval. I was intrigued by what he shared with me, and so I went out and did some research, and I discovered that he was right on target. In particular, over the last 100 years we have seen an unusual number of key historical events take place during years that end in 9, and that seems quite strange. Could it be possible that the ending of one decade and the imminent start of a new one somehow triggers something inside of us psychologically? I don’t know, but there does seem to be a pattern. In this article I will summarize some of the things that I have discovered, and I will let you come to your own conclusions.
Let’s start with 1929. As I repeatedly remind my readers, most large stock market crashes tend to happen during the fall, and on October 29th, 1929 there was a devastating stock market crash unlike anything that the United States had ever seen before. That date is generally considered to be the start of the Great Depression, which to this day is the worst economic downturn the western world has ever experienced. The Great Depression lasted for ten years, and that brings us to the next “9” on our list…
1939 was the year when World War II started. It was the most catastrophic war that the world has ever seen, and it didn’t end until 1945. It is estimated that somewhere between 70 million and 85 million people were killed, and the war shocked the planet so much that we haven’t seen a war like it since.
1949 was a year of great change, and it was really when the battle lines of the Cold War between the east and the west definitely solidified. During this year, the Communist Party of China was able to take full control of mainland China, and the People’s Republic of China was formally established. In addition, in 1949 the Soviet Union tested their first atomic bomb, it was the year of the Berlin blockade, and NATO was formed on April 4th, 1949.
1959 was the year when Fidel Castro came to power. Thanks to the success of the Cuban revolution, Cuba became the first communist power in the western hemisphere, and this ultimately led to the Cuban missile crisis of 1963.
1969 was so tumultuous that a number of documentaries have been made about that single year, and author Rob Kirkpatrick wrote an entire book about it entitled “The Year Everything Changed”. It was the year of the Moon landing, Woodstock and the Manson murders. During this year Richard Nixon was sworn in as the president of the United States, 250,000 Americans marched on Washington to protest the Vietnam War, and the Palestine Liberation Organization was founded.
1979 was the year of the Iranian Revolution. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini came to power in February, and the Iranian hostage crisis began in November. If there had been no Iranian hostage crisis, it is possible that Ronald Reagan may have been defeated by Jimmy Carter in 1980. 1979 was also the year when Margaret Thatcher first became prime minister of the UK, and she served all the way until 1990.
1989 was another year of revolution. In June of that year the pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square in Beijing were brutally crushed by the Chinese government. On the other side of the world, 1989 was the beginning of the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia which ultimately resulted in a peaceful division of that nation into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. George H.W. Bush was sworn in as the president of the United States during this year, and huge protests on both sides of the Berlin Wall ultimately resulted in the collapse of the East German government.
1999 was the year when Bill Clinton came very close to being removed from office. On February 12th, the United States Senate narrowly acquitted Clinton of perjury and obstruction of justice. 1999 was also the year when the euro become the official currency of the European Union, and at the end of the year the Y2K scare was making headlines all over the globe.
2009 was definitely a year of “change”. On January 20th, Barack Obama became the first African-American to become the president of the United States. Meanwhile, the nation was greatly suffering from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It is estimated that 8.8 million jobs were lost during the “Great Recession”, and millions of Americans also lost their homes as a result of the subprime mortgage meltdown. As 2009 was ending, the Economic Collapse Blog was launched.
So now here we are in another year that ends in 9. So far in 2019, we have seen mass shootings, crop failures, dramatic escalations in our trade war with China, and a potential war with Iran is looming on the horizon. Americans are angrier, more frustrated and more divided today than ever before in modern American history, and the mainstream media continues to stir the pot on a daily basis.
The stage is definitely set for things to explode during the second half of this year, and a lot of people that I have been talking to feel like things could really start breaking loose at any moment.
To a large degree, 2019 has already been a year of tremendous upheaval, but many believe that the worst is still yet to come. So buckle up and hold on, because I think that things are about to get very bumpy. Please share this.
TWO: Miscarriages and Stillbirths: Estimated at 15-25% of all
births. If you include miscarriages that take place before awareness of
conception, the number could be as high as 40% to 50%. With 4 million
babies born annually, this is a range of 1-2 million, and could be the
leading cause of death. http://www.hopexchange.com/Statistics.htm
“Many women, before realizing a life has begun forming within them, may
miscarry without knowing it-assuming their miscarriage is merely a
heavier period. Therefore, the miscarriage rate may be closer to 40 or
50 percent. ” http://www.allaboutlifechallenges.org/miscarriage-statistics.htm
FIVE: Sepsis: 150,000 to 300,000: “Severe sepsis strikes more than a million Americans every year,1 and 15 to 30 percent of those people die. ” https://www.nigms.nih.gov/education/pages/factsheet_sepsis.aspx
Sepsis is a blood infection. It may include MRSA infections. But not
all blood infections are MRSA infections. This should be listed 2-3 on
the CDC list.
I do not study the “leading causes of death” due to any morbid
fascination. My father sold life insurance. The life insurance
industry needed to be familiar with the leading causes of death to be
able to underwrite a life insurance policy. My dad used to reference
the list when comparing dangers in the world. This does not always
work, of course. I grew up ski racing; ski racing is a very dangerous
sport. People die from ski racing. But since so few people do it, it
does not show up on the list!
The desire to “save lives” or the claim to try to “save lives” is
often used to shape public policy. But the public policy is often more
shaped by media narratives, rather than the facts.
Part of why I advocate silver and gold is due to my study of history,
real history. The excessive war reparation debts levied on Germany
after WWI ultimately led to hyperinflation, the rise of Hitler, and
World War II, which killed some estimated 70 million people.
Hyperinflation and currency destruction nearly always leads to a great
loss of economic prosperity, which leads to a loss of life.
One obvious conclusion? If the CDC can’t get the top ten causes of
death right, not even half right, then how trustworthy are they? Also
note, all of the omitted causes of death could all be caused by the
Medical establishment.
1. Abortion. Doctors perform abortions.
2. Miscarriages can be caused by various medical interventions, such as biopsies, medicines, and poisonings.
3. Preventable harm to patients.
4. MRSA infections are primarily in hospitals, which I believe are
caused by Cortisol. Doctors also refuse to use iodine, boron, and
colloidal silver, all three of which are reported to kill MRSA. Iodine
kills MRSA in seconds topically. I have a series of 3 articles on this
topic, search for MRSA in the search bar at the main page.
5. Sepsis is a blood infection, but the Medical establishment
refuses to use iodine and colloidal silver, which are natural mineral
antibiotics.
6. Prescription drugs. In contrast, vitamins and minerals kill nobody.
======
And this does not count media bias in death reporting, as follows, which still gets it wrong on what people actually die from.
Source: https://owenshen24.github.io/charting-death/
Mass Shootings and Terrorism are about 1000 times lower than the
tenth cause of death on the top ten leading causes of death. About 50
vs. about 50,000.
Here is my revised “top ten” leading causes of death (sources already listed above): Those in bold are not on the CDC list.
Miscarriage: about 1-2 million
Deaths induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures 783,936.
Abortion: 664,435
Heart disease: 614,348
Cancer: 591,699
Deaths associated with preventable harm to patients: more than 400,000.
Sepsis (Blood Infections): 150,000 to 300,000
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 147,101
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 136,053
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 133,103
Final note: Don’t let anyone tell you that “gun control is about
saving lives”, when gun control itself has led to the deaths of 200
million people at the hands of their own governments since 1900.
The second Amendment does not grant the right to own guns. It recognized the pre existing right.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.”
The American Revolutionary War was fought in large part because the Brittish tried to disarm Americans.
The American Revolutionary War was fought and won because private
citizens owned multiple ships outfitted with multiple rows of cannons
that could be granted letters of marque and reprisal, which is to say,
legal permission, to attack foreign nation ships and steal their cargo.
More people have died in the 20th Century from their governments
first disarming them, and then slaughtering their own people, about 200
million people killed, more than any other source, except possibly death
by modern medicine.
I believe all “gun free zones” should be abolished because they are
unconstitutional, and that they trample on the civil rights of the
people to keep and bear arms.
I believe that a private business that is open to the public must
give service to people who are carrying weapons, because private
businesses are licenced by the government, and are not allowed to
discriminate against people based on sex, color or religion, and it is
also a civil right, and religious command to carry weapons for self
defense and for those who cannot defend themselves.
I believe that when people call the police to report “a person with a
gun” that the police should arrest the caller for reporting a non
crime, and/or for trying to convert a civil right into a crime.
I believe “concealed carry” laws infringe on the people’s right to
keep arms, and that “brandishing” laws infringe on the people’s right to
bear arms. Simple assaut laws should be sufficient to prevent people
from engaging in brandishing type behavior which would include threats.
If no threat (assault) is made, then there is no crime.
People are being disarmed every day in America simply through the
process of a restraining order. If anyone lies and makes up an event
where you threatened them, as people tend to do if they get caught
threatening you they will quickly resort to this kind of false
accusation, then you will lose your right to own a gun as most
restraining orders are granted. These are federal laws.
https://family.findlaw.com/domestic-violence/firearms-and-domestic-violence.html
There are 2-3 million temporary restraining orders issued each year, more than the 2 million babies being born each year.
Almost all restraining orders applied for, are granted, because judges like to “err on the side of caution”.
At this rate, eventually everyone will no longer have any right to keep and bear arms.
I believe that politicians who propose gun control laws, and I
believe those politicians who have voted for gun control laws, and that
police who enforce gun control laws, should be prosecuted to the fullest
extent of the law for civil rights violations.
One of the best organizations that I have found that advocates for gun rights is: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership http://jpfo.org/
It has been a tumultuous weekend for the country, which suffered two consecutive mass shootings over the last 48 hours in both El Paso and Dayton.
And while the media was eager to quickly expose the El Paso shooter
as a right-wing extremist with the implication that he is merely
following Trump's belligerent rhetoric, only few details had emerged
about the Dayton, Ohio shooter although we certainly understand why the
mainstream media may not have rushed to make these alleged details
public - because according to Heavy.com,
the Dayton shooter was an Elizabeth Warren (and Bernie Sanders)
supporter who advocated for socialism, communism and supported Antifa. (more)
Earlier this year, following the Christ Church mosque attack, New Zealand briefly totally blocked access to several websites.
Yesterday, two men allegedly killed 30 people at a store in Dayton Ohio, and a mall in El Paso Texas. Today 8chan has been totally shut down.
If you don’t know what 8chan is, well it’s like 4chan but without the
sense of decency. If you don’t know what 4chan is, it’s like reddit
went off its medication.
Both places could be, can be, kinda gross. But they could –
can – also be amazing. Insightful. Useful. Free speech is like that. Sometimes
beautiful, sometimes ugly. If you cut off the ugly parts it’s not “free
speech” anymore. This is something we all know, but the media is trying
to force us to forget.
Hell, going by this absurd definition of “death count” – meaning,
apparently, “someone who allegedly posted there, allegedly committed a
crime” – then all Facebook and twitter have staggering “death counts”.
Known war criminals use twitter every single day.
The alleged Christ Church shooting was live-streamed on Facebook (but it was 8chan that got blocked).
The Guardian itself published an opinion piece, a week ago, written by Alastair Campbell. A man with a body count 50,000x higher than the Texas shooting. That’s an El Paso every day for 137 years.
This isn’t about hate, they’re fine with hate. This isn’t about blood, they love blood.
8chan was no more hateful or bloody than any website on that list, so what was the real problem with it?
It was anonymous, fringe and uncontrollable. It was free. Now it’s not. Any one of us could be next.
by Dr. Maike Hickson
Catherine Pepinster, the former editor-in-chief of the British Catholic
weekly, The Tablet, published two years ago a book in which she
claims that the British Foreign Office may have played an important role in
the 2013 papal election that resulted in Pope Francis' election. Based on
many interviews with key figures such as Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor and
the British Ambassador to the Holy See, Nigel Baker, she claims that the UK
“played a crucial role in the election of the Argentinian destined to shake
up the Catholic Church.”
Pepinster sees that, with the election of Pope Francis, a new sort of
relationship is developing. She states that “Britons have more
influence in Rome today than they ever have done before in the last 100
years.”
The reason as to why the British government would take interest in the
election of a new pope is also explained by the author. She quotes here
Nigel Baker, the Ambassador to the Holy See, who said in 2014: “We have an
embassy to the Holy See because of the extent of the Holy See soft power
network, the influence of the pope, and the global reach and perspective of
papal diplomacy focused on preserving and achieving peace, on the protection
of the planet, and on bringing people out of poverty.”
Pepinster recounts in her book how the British
government, through the person of the British ambassador to the Holy See,
was instrumental in setting up a meeting where key cardinals networked with
lesser-known cardinals to promote Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio for pope.
Calling Bergoglio's election a "very British coup," Pepinster's work
suggests that a secular power was involved in the election of a pope.
Pepinster writes that already under Pope Benedict XVI, there was a time
of “consolidation for the relationship between the British and the papacy.”
“That growing connection between the papacy and the United Kingdom,” she
adds, “was in many ways a recognition of the usefulness of the two entities'
own global networks. It is worth examining next how, in March 2013, one
occasion did bring these networks together to such dramatic and significant
effect that it would change the Catholic Church's course of history.”
Let us now examine how the British were to a certain extent involved in
the election of Pope Francis, a man “who would shake up not only the
Catholic Church but its relations with the world, and who would try to
reshape the institution of the papacy itself.”
First looking back at the 2005 election of Pope Benedict, Pepinster
quotes a Tablet article from that time which pointed out that the
cardinals who had come from less important and wealthy countries had been
left out of the private meetings of cardinals that are traditionally used as
means of building an opinion as to who the next Pope should be. The
Tablet then wrote that “some [cardinals], especially from the
developing world, were living at the outskirts of the city and had no
entourage, let alone press secretaries”; they therefore “would have been
unaware of the intimate gatherings of cardinals over whiskies or quiet
lunches to discuss strategies for the forthcoming election.”
Without naming names, Pepinster goes on to describe how, in 2013, “there
was concern that the developing world cardinals could be left on the
sidelines again,” since they do not have at their disposal their own
countries' embassies in Rome which they could use for receptions or for
dinners.
Further describing the situation in 2013 after Pope Benedict's
resignation, the author says that “factions had already opened up” among the
cardinals, with the curial cardinals being split into two camps – one in
favor of Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the other in support of Cardinal Tarcisio
Bertone.
“Meanwhile,” she continues, “four leading
European cardinal reformers – Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, Walter Kasper,
Godfried Danneels and Karl Lehmann, all of whom were thought to have backed
Jorge Bergoglio in the 2005 conclave – realized that these splits afforded
them an opportunity.” They had supporters for their cause among Latin
American and some influential Europeans voters, she explains.
Pepinster quoted papal biographer Austen Ivereigh and his statement that
there were 11 African and 10 Asian cardinals, and that “for the ones from
historically English-speaking nations, the British cardinal,
Murphy-O'Connor, was a reference point, and key to bringing them onside.”
“This is where the UK made a substantial contribution to the run-up to
the 2013 conclave,” writes Pepinster.
Conversations among people in senior positions in the Church in
London and Rome led to the realization that there was a major overlap
between the developing world and the British Commonwealth. Where better
to host a gathering for the cardinals who had no real base than the UK
embassy to the Holy See?
The idea that the British could provide a meeting place for the
cardinals from emerging nations and also use such an event as a
networking opportunity for people from the Commonwealth was put to the
UK ambassador Nigel Baker, who then discussed it with Cardinal Cormac
Murphy-O’Connor. It led to a reception on behalf of the British
government for cardinals from Commonwealth nations that took place at
the ambassador’s residence at the Palazzo Pallavincini.
Pepinster does not state who had this idea in the first place and when
this reception specifically took place, but Gerard O'Connell's book on
this conclave states that it took place on March 7, with Cardinal Gracias
and Turkson also present.
Noteworthy here is that, by means of this meeting, the UK government
helped Murphy-O'Connor to organize those cardinal electors from poorer
countries who might have been otherwise left out from any more organized
preparation of the 2013 conclave that ended up electing Pope Francis. Two
conservative English-speaking cardinals – Cardinal George Pell, as well as
Cardinal Marc Ouellet – were significantly left out of that meeting at the
British embassy.
“The most significant guest” at that gathering was, according to the book
author, Murphy-O'Connor. Even though he was too old to be able to vote at
the conclave, this British cardinal “had a highly significant role to play
that night at the Palazzo Pallavicini,” Pepinster explains. And since
another cardinal from the UK, Scotland's Keith O'Brien, did not participate
at the conclave due to the scandals surrounding him, the UK had only one
cardinal – Sean Brady of Northern Ireland – in that conclave. To return to that fateful gathering in the embassy, “the focus was on
those from the poorer nations,” according to Pepinster. “Quite what
Murphy-O'Connor said to the cardinals that night is not known.” As Baker
told Pepinster, at some point he had left the room to leave the “cardinal to
it.” At some point in the evening, the waiting staff also left the room,
thus enabling the cardinal “to have a few minutes of totally confidential
chat with the red hats from the south.”
Describing the outcome of that March 12-13 conclave, Pepinster points out
that Jorge Bergoglio had finally been elected by 115 cardinals, eighty of
which came from Europe and North America. She continues: “The other
thirty-five were from the rest of the world; left out in the cold during the
lobbying in 2005, a sizeable number had been drawn into the process far more
effectively in 2013, thanks to the Foreign Office and an English cardinal
who understood both Rome and Jorge Bergoglio.”
If Pepinster's account implies here that a foreign government had a role
to play in the election of a pope, this should justly cause concern. This
report certainly should lead to further inquiries also as to the involvement
of British foreign intelligence assets.
She continues, saying that even though the UK had at the time merely one
voting cardinal at the conclave, thus seeming to have been “banished to the
sidelines,” it played nevertheless “a crucial role in the election of the
Argentinian destined to shake up the Catholic Church with his drive for
reform and his peacemaking.” Pepinster insists on this point by additionally
quoting Tim Fischer, the former Australian ambassador to the Holy See, who
stated: “The British influence on the conclave was against all the odds, yet
it happened. That was down to one of the most capable cardinals I've ever
met – Cormac Murphy-O'Connor – playing the most powerful non-voting role in
the choosing of a pope I've ever known.”
Moreover, Catherine Pepinster told the
British Telegraph in 2017: “Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor was a
popular, genial man but beneath his jovial exterior was someone of great
canniness who knew exactly how the Vatican worked. And that canniness meant
he ensured his friend was elected Pope Francis – a pope who has made a huge
impact on the Catholic Church and the world. There have been kingmakers in
history; Cormac Murphy-O’Connor turned out to be a popemaker.”
Or, as Pope Francis himself put it a few months after his election and
during a papal audience with Murphy-O'Connor present: The pope pointed to
his old friend and said,
“You’re to blame!”
Justin Trudeau did little wrong in his supporters’ eyes during his
first three years as Canada’s prime minister. In the fourth, his
popularity has dropped so far his party may lose its majority in October
elections.
A secretly taped call is one reason why. Just before
Christmas, Canadian Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould turned on her
iPhone voice recorder for a call with the country’s top bureaucrat,
Michael Wernick. Mr. Trudeau and senior officials had already pressed
her and her chief aide 20 times in calls, messages and in person to let a
major Canadian firm avoid a criminal trial on bribery and fraud
charges. She had resisted.
