La presse anglophone nous apprend une initiative du pape François restée injustement méconnue : cette année, la veille de Pâques, il a accueilli un groupe de 50 transgenres issus de la paroisse de Torvaiannica, près de Rome, où le père Andrea Conocchia s’occupe d’une communauté transgenre. Le 24 avril, le groupe de transgenres y est revenu pour recevoir sa seconde dose. L’aumônier du pape Konrad Krajewski a confirmé l’information – ce dernier avait déjà apporté son soutien l’an dernier aux travailleurs du sexe transgenres.
Un liseur du Forum Catholique, Jean Kinzler, a traduit la dépêche : “A l’approche de Pâques cette année, Krajewski a contacté Conocchia, lui suggérant d’amener les personnes transgenres dont il s’occupait au Vatican pour se faire vacciner. “C’était vraiment Pâques”, a déclaré Conocchia à RNS vendredi 2 juillet, qualifiant l’occasion de “jour de vie et de résurrection” pour sa communauté“, composée notamment de transgenres travailleurs du sexe issus d’Amérique Latine et souvent en situation irrégulière.
“Le groupe comprenait également des bénévoles travaillant à la paroisse de Conocchia, ainsi que des immigrants et des réfugiés pris en charge par la Communauté de St. Egidio, une organisation d’aide catholique, ainsi que des familles en difficulté et des parents divorcés soutenus par l’organisation caritative catholique Caritas […] Les hommes et les femmes transgenres ont réagi avec « surprise » et « d’émotion » à l’expérience d’entrer au Vatican pour la vaccination, a déclaré Conocchia, ajoutant que beaucoup d’entre eux sont sans papiers et incapables d’accéder aux services de santé gratuits de l’Italie“
Le gouvernement libéral Trudeau lancera à destination des blancs une campagne sur le racisme Posted: 12 Jul 2021 08:41 AM PDT Nous reproduisons telle quelle la dépêche de l’agence de Presse canadienne… Avec quelques commentaires entre crochets Ottawa prévoit lancer une campagne publicitaire nationale visant à informer davantage de Canadiens blancs sur le racisme systémique. Manifestation pro-noire à Ottawa en 2016 Le lancement d’une campagne d’éducation et de sensibilisation du public fait partie de la stratégie du gouvernement libéral de lutte contre le racisme. Cette stratégie indique que 3,3 millions seront consacrés à des activités de marketing [de culpabilisation univoque.] Les détails de ce que recherche Patrimoine canadien dans une telle campagne, dont le lancement est prévu plus tard cette année, sont inclus dans les documents affichés sur le site web de Services publics et Approvisionnement Canada. Le ministère affirme que son public cible réside dans « les adultes canadiens d’âge moyen non racialisés » [blancs donc] — définis comme ayant entre 30 et 44 ans – vivant dans n’importe quelle zone rurale ou urbaine. Il précise que cela comprend les adultes résidant dans des endroits comme Hamilton, Thunder Bay et Québec, considérés comme des « points chauds du racisme » en raison du volume élevé de crimes haineux rapportés par la police. Selon les documents, le gouvernement souhaite que son auditoire soit informé des « préjugés implicites » et que la campagne tisse un récit convaincant au plan affectif de l’identité et des valeurs canadiennes contemporaines comme antithèse au racisme. Le ministère affirme que l’objectif de la campagne est d’amener plus de Canadiens à lutter contre le racisme systémique en les sensibilisant à ses impacts par l’entremise de la publicité, des médias sociaux et de l’engagement du public.[CTV ajoute : « Dans ce contexte de COVID-19, les Canadiens bénéficient d’une occasion unique de réinventer le contrat social de manière à placer l’antiracisme, l’équité, la réconciliation et les droits de la personne au cœur du processus de rétablissement », indiquent les documents. »] Il souhaite que la campagne cherche des moyens d’attirer la participation d’« influenceurs pertinents ». Exacerbé par la pandémie Le ministère cite des données montrant que pendant la pandémie, les communautés autochtones, noires, asiatiques, musulmanes et juives ont été confrontées à plus de discrimination et de crimes haineux. [On aimerait avoir des preuves…] La question du racisme systémique a été mise au premier plan en mai dernier après le meurtre de George Floyd, un Afro-Américain de Minneapolis, par l’ancien policier Derek Chauvin. [Aux États-Unis… et si tant est que c’était du racisme systémique. Rappelons que les autres policiers dans l’équipe de Derek Chauvin lors de l’arrestation de Floyd n’étaient pas tous blancs et qu’ils ne sont pas intervenus.] Sa mort a déclenché des manifestations et des rassemblements un peu partout au Canada, dénonçant également le racisme dans le pays. [Récupération que la Presse canadienne amplifie.] Plus récemment, le pays a été confronté à l’héritage du système des pensionnats pour les enfants autochtones. Des Premières Nations ont découvert à l’aide d’un radar à pénétration de sol des centaines de tombes anonymes [parfois centenaires] sur des sites d’anciens pensionnats où, selon elles, des enfants autochtones ont été enterrés. [Quel rapport avec les quadragénaires blancs d’aujourd’hui habitant Québec ?]
États-Unis — Toutes les anciennes statues y passeront-elles ? Posted: 12 Jul 2021 07:34 AM PDT Les autorités de la ville américaine de Charlottesville ont déboulonné samedi matin les statues de deux généraux : celle du général Robert Lee, chef de l’armée sudiste pendant la guerre de Sécession (1861–1865) et de son collègue lors de ce conflit, le général Thomas « Stonewall » Jackson. Elles se trouvaient dans deux petits parcs près du centre historique de cette ville de l’État de Virginie. Tôt samedi matin, la ville avait donc enlevé les statues des généraux confédérés Robert E. Lee et Stonewall Jackson. Puis, lors d’une réunion d’urgence du conseil municipal à midi, les responsables ont voté à l’unanimité le retrait d’une autre statue représentant Meriwether Lewis, William Clark et l’interprète de Sacagawea. Elle fut démontée en toute urgence samedi après-midi. Dustina Abrahamson, qui se dit être une descendante de l’icône amérindienne, avait déclaré à NPR en 2019 que la statue donnait l’impression que son arrière-arrière-arrière-tante était une lâche, comme si c’était une chienne qui accompagnait l’expédition. Ces dernières années, la représentation de Sacagawea, qui apparaît dans une position accroupie derrière les Anglo-Saxons debout, a été critiquée par les militants de gauche qui la considèrent comme offensante. Toutefois certains historiens soutiennent que sa posture montre la femme indienne en train d’inspecter le sol comme pisteuse et qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une pose servile.Le Centre exploratoire Lewis et Clark de Charlottesville a proposé d’accueillir la statue — mais le conseil municipal n’a pas encore décidé d’accepter cette offre. Ces statues sont considérées par les militants d’extrême gauche comme des icônes du « racisme » systémique qui gangrènerait la société américaine. Rappelons que ces deux militaires Lee et Jackson se sont également distingués dans l’armée fédérale lors de la guerre contre le Mexique (1846-48) et pas uniquement lors de la Guerre de Sécession. Lors de la guerre entre les États du Sud et du Nord des États-Unis, ces généraux combattirent d’abord nom au droit de souveraineté des États fédérés et plus particulièrement de leur « pays », la Virginie. L’esclavage n’était pas le seul élément qui explique la Guerre de Sécession. En effet, quatre États esclavagistes combattirent du côté du Nord : le Delaware, le Maryland, le Kentucky et le Missouri. Après 1863, le nouvel État de Virginie occidentale se joignit à ces États frontaliers. La proclamation d’émancipation des esclaves de Lincoln de 1863 ne s’appliqua d’ailleurs pas à ces cinq États frontaliers. Les différends qui opposaient le Sud et le Nord allaient bien au-delà de l’esclavage : les conflits opposaient un Nord très blanc, protectionniste de son industrie naissante et valorisant la petite propriété agricole familiale au Sud sans industrie, en faveur du libre échange commerciale, à la population très diverse ethniquement, tourné vers l’exportation et aux nombreuses grandes plantations. Deux Amériques très différentes en de nombreux aspects. La statue de Lewis, Clark et Sacawagea, également enlevée de toute urgence Lee, contre la Sécession, fidèle à la Virginie, pour l’abolition à terme Lee s’opposa en privé à la sécession des nouveaux États confédérés d’Amérique dans des lettres au début de 1861. Cette opposition fut finalement vaincue par ses réserves sur la légitimité d’une « Union conflictuelle qui ne peut être maintenue que par des épées et des baïonnettes » et son devoir de défendre sa Virginie natale en cas d’attaque. À un lieutenant qui lui demandait s’il avait l’intention de se battre pour la Confédération ou l’Union, Lee répondit : « Je ne porterai jamais les armes contre l’Union, mais il peut être nécessaire pour moi de porter un mousquet dans la défense de mon état natal, la Virginie, auquel cas je ne me montrerai pas réfractaire à mon devoir ». Ce qui inquiétait le plus Lee était la violence de la solution abolitionniste et non l’amour de l’esclavage en lui-même. « En cet âge éclairé, peu de gens, je crois, n’admettraient pas que l’esclavage en tant qu’institution, est un mal moral et politique dans n’importe quel pays », écrivit-il à sa femme. Pour Lee, le fardeau du mal retombait en réalité davantage sur « la race blanche que sur la race noire », car « les Noirs sont infiniment mieux lotis ici qu’en Afrique, moralement, socialement et physiquement », et leur « discipline douloureuse » en tant qu’esclaves va « les préparer et les conduire à de meilleures choses ». Ce que redoutait Lee c’était le bouleversement causé par une émancipation soudaine et totale de la population asservie. Cela n’aboutirait, soutenait Lee, qu’à ce que l’abolitionniste « crée des sentiments de colère chez le maître… s’il veut du bien à l’esclave », car l’abolitionniste n’a pas plus de raison d’intervenir dans les relations juridiques des maîtres et des esclaves que dans toute autre « sorte d’ingérence avec nos voisins lorsque nous désapprouvons leur conduite ». « L’abolition définitive de l’esclavage humain est en marche, et nous lui apportons l’aide de nos prières et de tous les moyens justifiables en notre pouvoir », d’écrire Lee mais c’est un processus qui ne peut être précipité, et « résultera plus tôt de la douceur et du creuset du christianisme que des tempêtes de la controverse enflammée. » Après la guerre de Sécession, En 1865, Lee devint président du Washington College (plus tard Washington and Lee University) à Lexington en Virginie ; à ce poste il soutint la réconciliation entre le Nord et le Sud. Lee accepta « l’extinction de l’esclavage » prévue par le treizième amendement, mais s’opposait à l’égalité raciale pour les Afro-Américains. Lee aida des esclaves à rejoindre, libres, le Libéria et libéra ses siens esclaves, il pensait que la fin de l’esclavagisme ne devrait avoir lieu que dans un avenir non défini dans le cadre du dessein de Dieu. Jackson, probablement contre l’esclavage selon son biographe Jackson n’a jamais défendu ni condamné l’esclavage. Selon le biographe de Jackson, James I. Robertson fils, il s’est probablement opposé à l’institution. Pourtant, dans son esprit, le Créateur avait sanctionné l’esclavage, et l’homme n’avait aucun droit moral de contester son existence. Le bon esclavagiste chrétien était celui qui traitait ses serviteurs avec équité et humanité à tout moment. Jackson possédait six esclaves à la fin des années 1850. Trois (Hetty, Cyrus et George, une mère et ses deux fils adolescents) ont été reçus comme dot lors de son mariage avec Mary Anna Jackson. Un autre esclave, Albert, a demandé à Jackson de l’acheter et de lui permettre de travailler pour sa liberté ; il était employé comme serveur dans l’un des hôtels de Lexington. Amy a également demandé à Jackson de l’acheter lors d’une vente aux enchères publique d’esclaves et elle a servi la famille en tant que cuisinière et femme de ménage. La sixième, Emma, était une orpheline de quatre ans avec un trouble d’apprentissage, offerte par une veuve âgée et acceptée par Jackson. Sacagawea, rôle mythifié, rôle des Canadiens français occulté La statue de Lewis et Clark représente donc Sacawagea accroupie. La « Femme-oiseau », c’est son nom en français, a acquis un rôle très exagéré dans la culture populaire américaine. Aucun Canadien français n’est représenté dans cette statue comme tant d’autres sur Lewis et Clark. Pourtant leur rôle fut essentiel. Clark et Sacageawa ne pouvaient ainsi se parler puisque pour lui parler Clark devait passer par François Labiche qui comprenait l’anglais. Labiche traduisait ensuite en français pour Charbonneau qui ne parlait pas anglais et qui traduisait à son tour en meunitarri (gros ventre) à sa femme, la Femme-oiseau… Labiche et Charbonneau n’étaient pas les seuls francophones de l’expédition : le métis George Drouillard, fut qualifié de meilleur chasseur de l’équipée par Lewis. Pas de statue pour lui. Cette mythification de Sacageawa (dont on sait peu de choses en réalité) et cette occultation et la dépréciation du rôle des Français (sales, avinés, coureurs d’Indiennes, cruels, colériques, etc.) sont assez fréquentes dans les romans ou films qui traitent de cette expédition. Voir les extraits dans la vidéo ci-dessous. (« The » Revenant, Hollywood et le Canadien français et Le cinéma, cette arme idéologique contre le Frenchie comme le Russkof ou le Chinetoque).Lincoln : les noirs jamais nos égaux sociaux, pour le retour en Afrique ou l’établissement en Amérique centrale Si Jackson et Lee sont considérés comme des icônes du « racisme systémique », si Lewis, Clark et Sacaweaga ont aussi été déboulonnés, les statues de Lincoln resteront-elles longtemps encore en place ? En effet, Lincoln n’était ni abolitionniste à son élection ni pour l’égalité sociale entre blanc et noir. Dans un discours de trois heures à Peoria, en Illinois, à l’automne 1854, Lincoln a présenté plus clairement que jamais son opposition morale, juridique et économique à l’esclavage, puis a admis qu’il ne savait pas exactement ce qu’il fallait faire à ce sujet dans les circonstances. Bien que Lincoln ait soutenu que la phrase des pères fondateurs « Tous les hommes sont créés égaux » s’appliquait aux Noirs et aux Blancs, cela ne signifiait pas qu’il pensait qu’ils devraient avoir les mêmes droits sociaux et politiques. Son opinion sur le sujet a été clairement énoncée lors d’une série de débats en 1858 avec son adversaire dans la course de l’Illinois au Sénat américain, Stephen Douglas (un nordiste donc), qui l’avait accusé de soutenir « l’égalité des nègres ». Lors de leur quatrième débat, à Charleston, la ville de l’Illinois et non celle de la Caroline du Sud, le 18 septembre 1858, Lincoln expliqua clairement sa position : « Je dirai alors que je ne suis pas ni n’ai jamais été, en faveur de la réalisation de l’égalité sociale et politique des races blanche et noire ». Il ajouta qu’il s’opposait à ce que les Noirs aient le droit de vote, de faire partie de jurys, d’occuper des fonctions et de se marier avec des Blancs. La statue « problématique » de Lincoln émancipant un esclave a été enlevée à Boston en décembre 2020
Pendant une grande partie de sa carrière, Lincoln a cru que la colonisation — c’est-à-dire l’idée qu’une majorité de la population afro-américaine devrait quitter les États-Unis et s’installer en Afrique ou en Amérique centrale — était le meilleur moyen de résoudre le problème de l’esclavage. Ses deux grands héros politiques, Henry Clay et Thomas Jefferson, avaient tous deux favorisé la colonisation ; tous deux étaient des esclavagistes qui contestaient certains aspects de l’esclavage, mais ne voyaient aucun moyen pour que les Noirs et les Blancs puissent vivre ensemble en paix. Lincoln a d’abord plaidé publiquement pour la colonisation en 1852 et, en 1854, a déclaré que son premier instinct serait « de libérer tous les esclaves et de les envoyer au Libéria » (l’État africain fondé par l’American Colonization Society en 1821). Près d’une décennie plus tard, alors même qu’il rédigeait le projet de la Proclamation d’émancipation préliminaire en août 1862, Lincoln a accueilli une délégation d’hommes et de femmes noirs libérés à la Maison-Blanche dans l’espoir d’obtenir leur soutien sur un plan de colonisation en Amérique centrale. Étant donné les « différences » entre les deux races et les attitudes hostiles des Blancs envers les Noirs, a soutenu Lincoln, il serait « mieux pour nous deux, par conséquent, d’être séparés ». Lincoln décréta la Proclamation d’émancipation des esclaves principalement comme une mesure militaire pour saper la Confédération sudiste tout en fournissant à l’Union nordiste une nouvelle source de main-d’œuvre pour écraser la rébellion. Mais cette émancipation ne s’appliquait pas aux États esclavagistes frontaliers comme le Delaware, le Maryland, le Kentucky et le Missouri, qui étaient tous fidèles à l’Union. (Le Missouri avait en fait deux gouvernements concurrents ; un loyal envers l’Union et l’autre fidèle à la Confédération). Lincoln a également exempté certaines zones de la Confédération qui étaient déjà sous occupation nordiste dans l’espoir de gagner la loyauté des Blancs de ces États. Dans la pratique, la proclamation d’émancipation ne libéra dans l’immédiat aucun esclave, car les seuls endroits où elle s’appliquait étaient ceux où le gouvernement fédéral ne pouvait la mettre en vigueur. La proclamation de Lincoln marqua cependant un tournant dans la guerre civile elle-même. À la fin de la guerre, quelque 200 000 hommes noirs servaient dans l’armée et la marine de l’Union.
Those are the mantras, of course, of the pro-choice lobby. And they didn’t start in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. In my unfortunate life as an authority on the communist movement, which means reading a lot of dark stuff, I found communists using similar slogans in the 1920s. Long before American pro-choice liberals were touting slogans like “Keep your hands off my body,” communist women in Germany in the 1920s were urging abortion under the campaign slogan “Your body belongs to you.” Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
Quite chillingly, the pro-choice credo “This is my body” is an unholy inversion of the precise sacrificial words of Jesus Christ at the Last Supper. Those words of Christ are repeated every hour worldwide in every Mass by every priest, serving in persona Christi, as he elevates the host—i.e., the Real Presence, the Body of Christ—and affirms, “This is my Body.”
That Body was a sacrifice given up for you. It is Christ sacrificing Himself, all the way to the cross. He was willing to die for you. He did not demand that you die for Him. He willingly gave up His body. It was the ultimate unselfish act. The act of abortion, on the other hand, is purely about the self.
“My body, my choice” is also the creed of the 60 pro-choice Catholic Democrats who wrote a letter to the bishops insisting that their staunch advocacy of unrestricted “abortion rights” should not affect their fitness to receive the Body of Christ. Their attitude is best reflected by the statements of Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Ted Lieu. When a reporter asked Pelosi if she believed she could be denied the Eucharist, she asserted: “I think I can use my own judgment on that.” Ted Lieu went further, taunting the bishops: “Next time I go to Church, I dare you to deny me Communion.” Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
How dare the bishops infringe upon a woman’s “sacred” (as Pelosi put it) right to choose to do what she wants with her body.
Of course, this is also the position of our pro-choice Catholic president, Joe Biden.
I mention this right now in light of so many pro-choice liberals demanding that everyone in America be vaccinated against COVID-19, including those who choose not to. Joe Biden threatens to go from “door to door” urging people to take the needle: “We need to go community by community, neighborhood by neighborhood, and oft times, door to door, literally knocking on doors.” Former Planned Parent president Leana Wen argued that Biden needs to force vaccinations on the populace. Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
That includes you and your children.
They are even demanding this of those of us who have suffered through COVID-19 and now have natural immunity.
And before I go any further, let me state for the record that I am not an “anti-vaxxer.” I published a bunch of articles and did a lot of media commentary expressing my great concern over COVID-19. I was anything but a COVID-19 skeptic; to the contrary, I was arguably a COVID-19 alarmist. I wrote repeatedly about the crucial need for a vaccine. I was a staunch advocate for President Trump’s Operation Warp Speed. I’ve never opposed vaccines, and I wrote very positively about promising efforts to develop COVID-19 vaccines at my alma mater, the University of Pittsburgh, where I spent four years working in immunology for the organ transplant team. Advertisement – Continue Reading Below
Again, I’ve never been an “anti-vaxxer.”
Having said all of that, no one should be able to force me or any American to inject something into our bodies against our will, our conscience, and our constitutional liberties, especially when other Americans can easily and freely choose to get vaccinated and receive protection.
Moreover, many of those choosing not to get vaccinated are doing so because they do not want to take vaccines that even the FDA and pharmaceutical companies explicitly warn are experimental. The official “Fact Sheet for Recipients and Caregivers” of the Pfizer vaccine states categorically: “There is no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vaccine to prevent COVID-19.”
People are also hesitant to get vaccinated because of alarming reports of bad side effects. There are increasingly disturbing reports of perfectly healthy young people developing myocarditis from these vaccines, including a 19-year-old girl in my area who, two weeks ago, had to receive a heart transplant and remains in critical condition. Not surprisingly, the CDC is now openly acknowledging (click here and here) that there is a direct risk of myocarditis to young people receiving the mRNA-based vaccines.
Notably, the dominant mRNA-based vaccines are not traditional vaccines. Unlike vaccines like, say, the Salk polio vaccine (which I wrote about a number of times last year), these are not conventional vaccines. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are mRNA based and thus totally different and very new. (Here’s a well-written piece for the layman on the differences among the leading vaccines in use or under development.)
I know people (Catholics among them) who are awaiting the non-mRNA-based vaccines, such as Novavax (see this in-depth piece in The Atlantic), which they understand is more conventional, less risky, and so far seems even more effective. (Novavax is based on the type of simpler and more reliable vaccine technology used for Shingles and Hepatitis, the latter of which was the dominant disease I dealt with among my liver-transplant patients.) They are also hoping that these other vaccines will not be tainted with material from cell lines of aborted fetuses.
Significantly, Joe Biden’s Church backs these Catholics. In an official statement released December 21, 2020, the Vatican stated categorically: “vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and…it must be voluntary.” The Vatican says that you cannot be forcibly vaccinated against your will. Forced vaccination is a violation of your freedom of religion and conscience. This is officially affirmed by the American bishops.
Thus, yet again, Joe Biden is taking a position in direct contravention of the moral-ethical position of his Church.
The freedom not to be forced into receiving experimental vaccinations is especially critical for those of us who had COVID-19 and now have antibodies. A peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nature found that patients who have recovered from COVID-19 develop “long-lasting immunity,” namely with “antibody-producing cells” that “live and produce antibodies for the rest of people’s lives.”
A major study by Cleveland Clinic, conducted on 52,238 employees, concluded categorically that individuals who had COVID-19 “do not get additional benefits from vaccination.” It found that “no significant difference in COVID-19 incidence was observed between previously infected and currently unvaccinated participants, previously infected and currently vaccinated participants, and previously uninfected and currently vaccinated participants.” (I wrote about these studies here.)
In light of this latest research, and the other aforementioned factors, no one should be forcing people to take experimental vaccines against their will. This is America. You can’t do that.
That brings me back to my point at the start of this article: whatever happened to “This is my body!” and “My body, my choice?”
Is it not fascinating, if not revolting, that liberals will proclaim these mantras when it comes to abortion, which most acutely affects the other body in the situation—the unborn one—which has no choice at all, but they will not apply the mantras to forcible vaccination, which actually involves only the body that has the choice?
And so, behold the anti-choice vaccination thinking of pro-choice liberals: It’s your body and your choice if you want to abort your child, but it’s not your body and your choice if you want to choose not to be vaccinated.
But vaccination is your choice. If Joe Biden and friends come knocking at your door, tell them firmly: “My body, my choice.” This is my body, Joe. Keep your hands off.
Paul Kengor is Professor of Political Science at Grove City College, executive director of the Center for Vision and Values. He is the author, most recently, of The Devil and Karl Marx (TAN Books, 2020).
La Chine a collecté des données génétiques dans le monde entier à travers des tests prénataux Des données génétiques de femmes enceintes sont collectées par un test prénatal développé par BGI Group, une entreprise chinoise, et l’un des plus grands centres de séquençage de l’ADN au monde.
LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
July 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In a recent monologue on the Ingraham Angle, hostess Laura Ingraham highlighted the left’s contemporary assault upon parental rights with regards to recklessly injecting children with experimental mRNA COVID-19 gene-therapy vaccines without parental consent, indoctrinating children with a dark “anti-Americanism,” and encouraging them to engage in sexual activity beginning in fifth grade.
“Hide your kids,” announced the Fox News host last Friday night. “It’s often said that ‘the children are our future,’ and of course that’s exactly why the left wants to take them from parents who don’t buy into their twisted agenda.”
On many fronts, Ingraham warned, “forces are working overtime to undermine parental rights,” and the Christian moral framework that affirms them. “From teachers’ unions to gender activists to Biden’s vaccine pushers, we’re seeing a concerted effort, backed by some of the biggest financial interests out there, to indoctrinate our children into a dark mindset of anti-Americanism.”
“Now this new normal requires the undermining of American history,” she said, and “teaching concepts directly at odds with the ideal of the nuclear family.”
“On the COVID issue, government and so-called public health experts are trying to force your kids to get injected with an experimental COVID vaccine whether you want them to or not,” Ingraham warned. Part of this effort entails the Biden administration taking “their pressure campaign to your doorstep.” SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
Last week, White House press secretary Jen Psaki announced the federal government was “going to continue to press to get 12- to 18-year-olds vaccinated” despite their age category having a 99.997 percent survival rate for COVID-19, and yet at least a 1 in 333 (.3 percent) chance of a serious adverse event (SAE) occurring with injections of these experimental vaccines. This means a child is at least 10,000 times more likely to have an SAE from the vaccine, includingdeath, than dying from COVID-19.
Psaki also said that the administration initiated “strike forces” to canvas neighborhoods, door to door, to promote jabs with these experimental biological agents.
“Strike forces?” Ingraham quipped. “[China’s Communist] President Xi must be very proud of that language.”
Indeed, “Biden’s vaccine militia will apparently be asking household adults questions about the family’s vaccine status and God knows what else,” she warned.
In response to a statement by the radically pro-abortion Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, claiming that the government has a right to individual vaccine information, Ingraham countered, “Xavier, it’s not your department’s role to pry into the medical decisions of American citizens … [and] we trust parents, not the bureaucrats who’ve misled us consistently, to make important family health decisions.”
Happily, she said, Republican state officials are already responding. “Missouri’s governor, Mike Parson, politely told the feds to take their vaccine evangelization elsewhere. And the Arizona AG [Attorney General] in a letter to President Biden, raised the issue of medical privacy, writing, ‘I will not tolerate such intrusions within Arizona. If Americans are on the fence about taking the COVID-19 vaccine, it would be most inappropriate for bureaucrats to single them out regardless of motivations or intentions.’” — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus
1,047,060 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 1,050,000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
The left’s “raw obsession with vaccinating kids who rarely get ill from COVID” rightly fosters distrust, according to the Fox News host.
Such examples include a new law in Connecticut “that requires kindergarteners to be vaccinated even if it violates parents’ religious beliefs,” and a District of Columbia law that “allows children as young as 11 years old to get any vaccine, including COVID-19, without parental consent.”
In addition, “Alabama allows 14-year-olds to get the vaccine without parental consent, Oregon allows 15-year-olds to get it, and in Rhode Island and South Carolina you can get it at 16,” Ingraham said.
“Now this is just unacceptable. None of these states allow tattoos for those under the age of 18 without parental permission, but they’re allowing minors to get an experimental drug?” she asked.
This makes far less sense since a new study out of England confirmed that “99.995 percent of the 469,982 children in England who were infected during the year, as examined by researchers, survived” Ingraham explained.
Such “anti-parental trends” from the left are also compounded in schools where students are “forced to read sexually explicit books,” and then actually encouraged “to have sex,” she said. Such outrages include “one of New York’s fanciest schools” that “is teaching first graders about masturbation.”
Ingraham also covered how school administrators and teachers’ unions “move into smear mode” against parents who object to Critical Race Theory being taught to their children in schools. Such assaults are reinforced by the “democrat state media” that “will defame” them as well.
In concluding, the Fox News commentator said “totalitarian societies depend on propagandizing, and their leaders ruthlessly enforce its dissemination. ‘Give me four years to teach the children, and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.’ That was from Vladimir Lenin. We can’t afford to give our would-be cultural totalitarians four more weeks with our kids, let alone four more years.”
Study says flu vaccine during pregnancy poses no risk to child’s health — but here’s what researchers got wrong
A study published earlier this month in JAMA Network concluding maternal influenza vaccination during pregnancy was not significantly associated with an increased risk of adverse early childhood health outcomes failed to consider several key points. Tue Jul 13, 2021 – 1:04 pm EST
LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
July 13, 2021 (Children’s Health Defense) – A study published earlier this month in JAMA Network concluding maternal influenza vaccination during pregnancy was not significantly associated with an increased risk of adverse early childhood health outcomes, failed to consider several key points.
The study, “Association of Maternal Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy With Early Childhood Health Outcomes,” was based on a cohort of 28,255 children born in Nova Scotia between 2010 and 2014. About 36% of the children were exposed to the influenza vaccine during gestation.
Researchers followed the children during gestation and after live birth, for an average of 3.6 years — an inadequate length of time to provide any real assurance that the vaccine administered to the mother during pregnancy would have no negative impact on the child’s long-term health.
The study’s authors claim to have found no relationship between maternal influenza vaccine exposure and childhood diagnoses of asthma, upper and lower respiratory infections, gastrointestinal infections, ear infections, neoplasms, hearing or vision loss, or urgent and in-patient health services utilization.
Diagnoses considered in this study were based on emergency room visits and hospitalizations only — even though most diagnoses are made in other, out-patient settings such as practitioner office visits. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
According to the Asthma Fact Sheet, 9.5% of all Canadians have asthma. Yet the study authors report an incidence of 3.0 diagnoses per 1,000 person years, which translates to 1.1 cases of asthma per 100 children in the study or 1.1%.
Other diagnoses in the study are similarly under-ascertained and reflect only a small fraction of the actual number of diagnoses in each group.
The researchers’ claim that there was no significant difference between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups studied is simply not true. Adjusted rates of ear infections (otitis media) were reported as significantly higher in Table 2 of the paper.
In addition, when including marginally significant results, adjusted rates of lower respiratory infections and urgent and in-patient health services utilization were higher in the vaccinated group as well as crude rates of gastrointestinal infections and urgent and in-patient health services utilization.
When looking specifically at the trimester of vaccination, third-trimester vaccination was significantly associated with lower respiratory infection when compared to the unvaccinated group (see figure below). These results were summarily ignored by the study authors, despite the level of significance achieved.
The control diagnosis (nebulously defined as “all-cause injuries”) shows a significantly higher incidence in maternally vaccinated children versus unvaccinated children. The control diagnosis in epidemiology is used as a study “barometer” to test validity of results obtained and should not be significantly related to vaccination status. — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Support Texas Dad risking everything to save his son from being « transitioned » into a girl
3,953 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 4,000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
This casts a shadow of doubt on any conclusion made from this study. It also raises concerns that physicians will use the study to provide false assurance of safety regarding the risks of administering flu vaccines during pregnancy.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Childrens’ Health Defense.
Brian S. Hooker, PhD, PE, is an Associate Professor of Biology at Simpson University in Redding California where he specializes in microbiology and biotechnology.
Eileen Iorio told RFK, Jr. on the “RFK Jr. The Defender Podcast” that while VAERS was created to protect children from vaccine injury by reporting adverse events to Congress, the government-funded reporting system has never followed through on that mission. Tue Jul 13, 2021 – 12:00 pm EST
The government-funded system for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. was created to protect children from vaccine injury. “It was supposed to trigger alerts and warnings,” said Iorio, mother of a vaccine-injured child and author of “HPV Vaccine On Trial.”
But what VAERS really does, Iorio told Kennedy, is exonerate vaccine makers from civil liability.
VAERS was designed to submit bi-annual reports to Congress on vaccine injury in children, but that never really happened, according to Iorio, who said, “Very little has been reported there until 2020-2021” — when COVID vaccines were rolled out.
While it’s unclear if the spike in the number of COVID vaccine adverse events is due to an increase in injuries, or is the result of better reporting, Iorio said COVID vaccine injuries now account for 30% of total adverse event vaccine reports recorded since 1990. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
Kennedy said one of the reasons VAERS is so flawed is that it’s a voluntary system that relies mostly on doctors to report vaccine injuries.
Kennedy said:
“Doctors are taught in medical school that vaccine injuries are mythology. They also are disincentivized from reporting too many. Doctors who do report them are punished by professional societies.”
Listen to the interview to hear how more than 99 percent of vaccine injuries are likely not being reported, and how doctors are discouraged from reporting vaccine injuries to VAERS.
France to make COVID jabs mandatory for many, life ‘totally impossible’ without COVID passport
‘Vaccination is not yet mandatory for everyone, but we’re going to extend the sanitary pass as much as possible to push as many of you as possible to get vaccinated,’ President Emmanuel Macron said, while also explicitly refusing to rule out compulsory vaccination for all French people. Tue Jul 13, 2021 – 7:02 am EST
French President Emmanuel Macron Le Parisien / YouTube
LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
ANALYSIS
PARIS, France, July 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Compulsory COVID “vaccination” for health workers and extended sanitary passport requirements are the most spectacular measures announced this Monday evening by Emmanuel Macron, France’s globalist president. The announcements were made during a televised speech during which the French president made clear that all the new measures have a single objective: to get more and more citizens to choose to receive the experimental vaccine. If that does not work, making the jab compulsory for all may be considered. https://cdn.vmrcommunications.com/stencil-files/2377ed9c-352e-4593-83f4-67e8b265a0df/index.html
But Macron wants more than that. In order to stop “even more dangerous variants” from making an appearance, he said an “immense project” needs to be implemented: “To vaccinate the world.”
Moreover Macron explicitly refused to rule out compulsory vaccination for all French people.
For the millions of you who have not yet been vaccinated, depending on the evolution of the situation we will have to raise the question of compulsory vaccination for all French people. But for now I chose trust, and I solemnly call on all our fellow citizens who haven’t yet been vaccinated to do so today. Nine million doses are ready for you.
The French government used the pretext of the growing prevalence of the so-called Delta (or Indian) variant, which is more contagious but less of a killer than the already not-so-lethal original Wuhan coronavirus to introduce compulsory vaccination in limited categories of the population. The move is presented as the “only way” to avoid further lockdowns, for which the non-vaccinated will be held responsible from now on.
Macron stated that the “vaccines” available in France (Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Janssen) are extremely efficient against the Delta variant, dividing contagions “by twelve” and avoid “95 percent” of hospitalizations. In the U.K., where vaccination is particularly widespread, the number of “cases” is rising fast, mainly with the Delta variant. And among the people whose death was attributed to the Delta variant – which is not many, because it is not very lethal – about half were fully vaccinated.
The jab is also being touted as the only way to avoid total economic collapse; the French employers’ organization “MEDEF” has been campaigning intensively for compulsory vaccination of all workers in contact with the public.
Macron stated: “We must move towards the vaccination of all the French, because it is the only pathway to the return to normal life. As a first stage, it will be mandatory for people in the health professions, care-givers or not.” At the same time, he asked the French to continue to observe social distancing. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
While the vaccine tyranny is not yet complete, a number of elements are in place that will make it easy to implement – if there is not an energetic reaction on the part of the public.
As things stand, the experimental “vaccine” – which at present has only a “conditional” marketing authorization, will be made obligatory “without waiting” for all employees – both health workers and administrative personnel – of hospitals, clinics, rest-homes for the elderly and institutions for the disabled. All people who are in contact with “fragile” populations, either in institutions or in their homes, will also be required to receive the experimental shots, be they professionals or voluntary workers. First responders and all health service workers in whatever context are included among the “70 professions” who will need to get the jab.
As of September 15, all those who continue to refuse the experimental “vaccination” will “no longer be allowed to work and will receive no pay,” health minister Olivier Véran made clear later on a news show on national television. Macron had already stated that from that date, “controls will be carried out and sanctions applied.”
The measure will take the form of a law voted by Parliament. A special parliamentary session will open on July 21 in order to adopt the text before the summer recess.
Unfortunately, none of the major political parties is expected to resist against mandatory vaccination for these first groups of citizens in what many see as only a first step to a universal mandate.
This is in direct contradiction with the promises made by Macron in November and again in December. On November 24, 2020, he declared: “Vaccination must be done in a clear, transparent way, sharing all the information at each step: what we know, as well as what we don’t know. I also want to be clear: I will not make vaccination mandatory.”
On December 27, the French president tweeted: “I have said it before and I will say it again: the vaccine will not be mandatory. Let us have confidence in our researchers and doctors. We are the country of the Enlightenment and of Pasteur, reason and science must guide us.”
But as a famous French politician, Charles Pasqua, once said: “Promises are only binding to those who listen to them.”
The sanitary pass system that was made compulsory for events with over 1,000 participants and other venues such as night-clubs since last month will be extended as of July 21 to all “culture and leisure venues” for more than 50 visitors, from 12 years of age up.
“It will be necessary to have been vaccinated or to have a negative test in order to gain access to a show, an amusement park, a concert or a festival,” said Macron.
“Starting in the beginning of August, the sanitary pass will apply to cafés, restaurants, hospitals, rest homes for the elderly and long-distance transportation: airplanes, trains and long-distance buses,” added Macron. Visitors to shopping centers will also need a sanitary pass. The obligation will also extend to restaurant and café terraces, added government spokesman Gabriel Attal on pro-Macron television station BFMTV. All employees of such establishments will also need to be vaccinated or show a negative COVID test. The list may be widened, Macron said.
France’s health minister Olivier Véran has said that the pass will not be required for entry to grocery stores.
It is not clear at this point whether the obligation will be extended to places of worship. — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus
1,047,047 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 1,050,000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Negative tests are only valid for 48 hours. In an added twist, PCR tests will no longer be funded by the social security system as of October, except when prescribed for symptomatic patients: people who do not want to be vaccinated and who still want to lead a normal life would need to pay for three COVID tests per week. This measure, said Macron, is intended to push people to accept vaccination.
Macron introduced these new restrictions because, he said, “vaccination levels are not sufficient.”
“Everywhere in France, we will recognize those with civic spirit and only impose restrictions on the non-vaccinated, rather than on everyone.”
Professor Laurent Alexandre, a prominent specialist on transhumanism and artificial intelligence who has repeatedly been invited by news shows to ridicule and oppose those who resist COVID restrictions and vaccination, was wildly enthusiastic on Twitter.
He wrote: “The anti-vaxxers have lost their battle. The vaccine has become as good as compulsory. It’s impossible to live without being vaccinated. You would need 15 PCRs per month because the validity of the PCR is reduced to 2 days and because the pass is necessary for everyday life.”
Minutes later, he added: “Frankly I did not think Emmanuel Macron would make the vaccine mandatory de facto. Without a pass life is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE; you can’t even catch a train or go to have a coffee. And it’s inhuman to get 15 PCRs a month!”
Macron made other announcements showing that none of the warning signs concerning the serious health risks associated with the “vaccines” are being taken into account. As of September, high school students and college students will face specific vaccination campaigns in their schools and universities, while people who got jabs at the beginning of 2021 will be offered boosters.
Unvaccinated travelers from “high risk” countries will be subject to “compulsory isolation.”
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.
FBI tells Americans to report family, peers exhibiting ‘suspicious behaviors’
Family members and peers are often best positioned to witness signs of mobilization to violence. Help prevent homegrown violent extremism… learn how to spot suspicious behaviors and report them to the FBI.’ Tue Jul 13, 2021 – 12:20 pm EST
LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
July 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) posted a tweet Sunday directing Americans to resources to learn how to identify “extremism” in family members and peers and to report their loved ones to the FBI.
The federal agency’s message tells Americans they are “best positioned” to identify “signs of mobilization to violence” in family members and peers and can help “prevent homegrown violent extremism.”
The booklet linked in the tweet was originally written in 2015 and most recently updated in 2019. Created in a combined effort between the National Counter-Terrorism Center (NCTC), FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the document primarily focuses on the threat of violent extremism from terrorists associated with Isis or other radical Islamic terror groups. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
It is unclear whether the document will be updated to include descriptions of the new groups which the Biden administration has declared pose the greatest terror threat in the United States today.
President Joe Biden has recently stated “white supremacy is terrorism,” weaponizing the offensive label frequently misapplied to conservatives who hold mainstream right-leaning perspectives on issues like critical race theory, border security, and election integrity.
The Biden administration has further declared domestic terrorism “the most urgent terrorism threat” in the U.S., referring to an unclassified report from the Office of National Intelligence published in March which states that “perceived government overreach will almost certainly drive DVE [domestic violent extremist] radicalization and mobilization to violence.”
“[N]arratives of fraud in the recent general election, the emboldening impact of the violent breach of the US Capitol, conditions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and conspiracy theories promoting violence,” the report claims, “will almost certainly spur some DVEs to try to engage in violence this year.” — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Say ‘No’ to COVID ‘Vaccine Passports’!
204,404 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 225,000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
According to the “Homegrown Violent Extremist Mobilization Indicators” booklet linked in the FBI’s tweet, behaviors considered concerning and potentially worthy of being reported to the federal government include writing posts on social media, sending tweets, or using hashtags using terminology allegedly associated with a violent ideology.
In addition, using encrypted media apps and software, engaging in physical or weapons training, and harboring an “us vs. them” mentality are also signs which could point toward “mobilization to violence,” according to the booklet.
“We are all in this together,” the document states. “We continue to see that members of the community—such as family members and peers—are often best positioned to witness signs of mobilization to violence. Such community members almost always are the first to detect hints that an individual may be considering violent action in the Homeland or overseas.”
While acknowledging “that many of the indicators described herein may involve constitutionally protected activities and might be insignificant on their own,” the booklet alleges that “when observed in combination with other suspicious behaviors, these indicators may raise suspicion in a reasonable person and constitute a basis for reporting.”
The booklet further encourages Americans “to contact law enforcement if, based on these indicators and the situational context, they suspect an individual is mobilizing to violence.”
Many prominent conservatives have reacted strongly against the FBI’s message, arguing that it blatantly encourages Americans to spy upon one another and mirrors the actions of Communist regimes.
The FBI’s message comes just weeks after the Biden administration unveiled its four-pillar plan to counter “domestic terrorism,” calling for Americans to report friends, family members, and coworkers they perceive to be “radicalizing.”
As previously reported by LifeSiteNews, the second pillar of the strategy positions “domestic violent extremism as a national priority,” allocating $77 million in grant money to address the threat. The pillar advocates a “see something, say something” approach which “involves creating contexts in which those who are family members or friends or co-workers” can “seek help for those who they have perceived to be radicalizing and potentially radicalizing towards violence.”
The plan also involves a global alliance of governments and Big Tech organizations to identify and eliminate internet content considered dangerous.
A senior Biden administration official described the immediate action necessary for confronting the “urgent” domestic terror threat in a press conference, noting that “manifestations” of that immediacy have already been seen in “the pretty extraordinary pace and scope of work done by investigators and prosecutors in the wake of the January 6 events.
LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
July 13, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A reader who came across my article “Between Christ the King and ‘We Have No King But Caesar,’” in which I defend the superiority of Catholic Monarchy over other forms of government, wrote to me with a question.
I was wondering, given the absence of true Catholic Monarchy today, our duty to submit to legitimate authorities, and “a world crashing around us into unimaginable deviancy,” what you thought our best options were. My feeling is that any form of theistic integralism — Calvinist, Lutheran, Mohammedan, or Jewish — would be preferable to the twin visions of Hell shown us by the Renegade Mainland Provinces and the Rebel North American Colonies. What do you think?
I replied that one might be torn on the question of whether a non-Catholic but religious regime is better than a secular one. It was surely not good for English Catholics when they suffered under Queen Elizabeth I, and it’s not good for today’s Catholics to be in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. On the other hand, there’s the saying about how the lukewarm will be vomited forth. People go more easily from false zeal to true zeal than they do from total indifference to religious faith. In that sense, a religious society is better off than an irreligious or non-religious society, and the same would seem to be true of governments.
When I wrote this, I had no idea that my interlocutor actually lived in Saudi Arabia! In response, he told me what it has been like for him to live in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the past two years. He admitted that he’s in a privileged position as a white-collar worker in a part of the country where crossing the causeway to Bahrain to attend Mass is possible, but he feels less under siege as a Catholic in Saudi Arabia than he did in a quiet university town in Australia, for the following reasons.
The rules in Saudi Arabia are settled and stable, and being based on an authority that is seen as Divine, bind the King as much as the least of his subjects. While the details may change over time, the extent of possible change has been pretty well-established by historical experiment, so the map of possible permutations is not hard to predict. It is not like the West today, where they are making rules up as they go along, and where each year brings fresh hell for Christians and conservatives. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
The things he’s not allowed to say are relatively few, and are not things he feels tempted to say anyway. Practically every day at his Australian university, on the other hand, he had to choke back something he wanted desperately to say that he knew would get him in trouble.
Moreover, “locals think better of the Christians than we deserve, and assume all Westerners are Christians.” Even Saudi co-workers who earned graduate degrees in Chicago or Manchester cannot really process that atheists exist in the world. So one would have to go out of one’s way to deny Christ in Saudi Arabia. In Australia, on the other hand, the default assumption of most people he met socially was that he would surely be a progressive atheist (since that’s seen as the only intelligent view), and he was often faced with the temptation to keep quiet to avoid an uncomfortable argument. In other words, in the Moslem country, faith is assumed; in a modern Western country, faithlessness is assumed.
Most movingly, he wrote, “It is a tremendous joy for me to wake up every morning in a place where the unborn are not being legally slaughtered. It is a lesser joy, but still a great one, to wake up every morning and know that the public square will not be pushing perversion at me all day long, in whatever ‘woke’ form it happens to take in the current calendar year.”
He said he appreciated the fact that there are things the State forbids him to do for the good of his soul — limits on his liberty that are less onerous than the ones Westerners put up with all over the world solely for the good of their bodies. Even if many of the Saudi restrictions may not actually be good for one’s soul, there is at least an acknowledgement that the soul is real and primary. In other parts of the so-called “free world,” the government is either studiously indifferent to the eternal welfare of its citizens or actively (though, one would hope, unwittingly) working to ensure their damnation.
His concluding thought was powerful: “So, although I considered myself fairly integralist before moving to Saudi Arabia, I am now much more integralist, having seen the ‘form’ of integralism in action, without its true ‘matter.’ In short: I would love to live in a Catholic version of this country, for that would unite the correct formality of government with the content of the truth.”
The perhaps surprising reflections of this Australian Catholic now residing in Saudi Arabia help us to step outside the bubble of our comfortable liberalism. The lack of secularism and the insistence that there is a divine order and that the political order must correspond to it makes an environment more true to reality and more human, even when religious error predominates. It shows the naturalness and rightness of integralism as a logical, coherent, and supportive mode of living. Liberalism is the illusion that it is possible to separate politics from its divine origin and finality and to understand citizenship in abstraction from the personal religious commitment of citizens. Liberalism seduces us into creating what we think is a neutral “God-free” space, which turns out to be a shrine in which the ego is erected as an idol. Where God is dethroned, the world, the flesh, and the devil rush in to fill the void.
_3_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
By Patrick Delaney
By Jeanne Smits, Paris correspondent
By Ashley Sadler
naufrage/sauvetage 