Biden DOJ retracts promise to ‘vigorously’ defend religious schools’ exemption from LGBT activism
The Biden administration fully intends to follow through on its promise to make the so-called Equality Act the law of the land, essentially crushing religious liberty in the US. Thu Jun 10, 2021 – 5:00 pm EST
WASHINGTON, June 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — After at first promising to “vigorously” defend a religious exemption for federally funded religious schools in a case brought about by LGBT students and alumni, the Biden administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) rushed to soften the language in its filing after being criticized by LGBT activists.
While the initial statement from the Biden DOJ was welcomed by conservatives and denounced by progressive and LGBT political forces, the quick evolution of the DOJ’s wording is indicative of the true trajectory of Democrat policymaking in Washington: The Biden Administration fully intends to follow through on its promise to make the so-called Equality Act the law of the land, essentially crushing religious liberty in the United States of America.
At stake in the case is Title IX’s prohibition against sex discrimination — now interpreted to include sexual orientation and gender identity — but which allows exemptions for religious organizations for whom such an interpretation is antithetical to their beliefs.
And while it is incumbent upon the DOJ to defend current law, laws which serve to protect religious liberty and conscience rights for Christians are clearly in the cross hairs of the Biden Administration.
The DOJ’s amended filing ominously notes, “The Department of Education is conducting a comprehensive review of its regulations implementing [the law], which sets forth the current administration’s policy on guaranteeing an educational environment free from discrimination on the basis of sex.”
In 2011 the DOJ under the Obama-Biden administration refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because President Obama and then-Attorney General Eric Holder had decided it was unconstitutional. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
In a statement dated March 8, 2021, Biden issued an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Education to “consider suspending, revising, or rescinding those agency actions that are inconsistent” with his aim to enforce Title IX’s new interpretation to include sexual orientation and gender identity “for students attending schools and other educational institutions that receive Federal financial assistance.”
Case demands that Christian schools act contrary to their beliefs
At the heart of the lawsuit at hand, known as “Hunter v. U.S. Department of Education,” a few dozen current and past LGBT students are asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to dismantle the long-established protections in Title IX preventing discrimination against religious schools in the disbursement of financial aid.
In April, attorneys with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) — representing Corban University, William Jessup University, and Phoenix Seminary — had sought to intervene in the case “that seeks to strip all students at private religious colleges of federal financial aid unless their schools renounce core religious beliefs.”
The suit “intends to prevent any students from using tuition grants, student loans, and any other federal financial assistance at schools that operate according to Christian beliefs on sexuality,” according to an ADF statement issued at the time.
“This lawsuit wants the federal government to tell Christian schools, ‘To continue accepting students who have federal financial aid, all you have to do is to start acting contrary to your own beliefs.’ That’s neither reasonable nor constitutional,” said ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of U.S. Litigation David Cortman at the time. “No court should grant a radical request to rewrite federal law and strong-arm religious colleges by stripping their students of much-needed financial aid. For that reason, we are asking the court to let our clients intervene in this lawsuit so that they and their students can defend their freedoms under federal law and the Constitution.”
“Targeting religious schools hurts the students and families who desire to pursue their education in places that share their faith and values. These schools should be allowed to defend their and their students’ long-recognized freedoms under federal law and the First Amendment,” noted ADF Senior Counsel Ryan Tucker.
The ADF-represented schools sought to intervene in the case because they believed that the Biden Administration “may be openly hostile” and should not be trusted to defend the religious exemption. — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Demand US Senate REJECT Anti-Life, Anti-Christian ‘Equality Act’!
38,436 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 40,000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
The move was rebuffed by the Biden DOJ, resulting in its amended filing rejecting the school’s concerns, claiming that its objective “is to defend the constitutionality of the statutory exemption.”
At bottom, the DOJ’s filing is an attempt to “prevent a Christian organization from taking over the defense,” according to Slate courts reporter Mark Joseph Stern.
LGBTQ Nationechoed the far-left’s hand wringing over the influence of Christian beliefs in the United States, noting: “The plaintiffs in Hunter v. Department of Education are from 18 different states and attended 25 different colleges and universities, all associated with Christianity” (second set of italics added for emphasis).
“100,000 LGBTQ students are attending schools that discriminate against them, receive federal funds, but are exempt by the Department of Education from enforcing Title IX,” continued LGBTQ Nation’s coverage, implying that all Chrisitan schools are de facto bigoted institutions, undeserving of federal funding.
Report adverse events or injury following vaccination in Canada
May 17, 2021 By Vaccine Choice Canada
COVID-19 vaccines available for emergency use in Canada are still in the experimental stage. If you elect to participate in the human trials, it is critical that you report any adverse events or injuries so that the manufacturers and public may be aware of the risk of vaccine injuries.
Adverse events following vaccination include unwanted or unexpected health effects that happen after a vaccine is received. These health effects may or may not be caused by the vaccine and may or may not be permanent.
Health Canada’s Reported side effects following COVID-19 vaccination in Canada – updated every Friday.
If you are unsure whether to report an adverse event or injury after receiving a COVID-19 shot, be proactive and report the event.
GENERAL PUBLIC – Report COVID-19 Shot Injuries
Complete the following four reports:
If you experience an adverse event or injury following a COVID-19 shot, instruct your doctor, nurse, or pharmacist to complete the Adverse Events Following Immunization (AEFI) form. Confirm that you will be provided a copy of their submitted report.
Vaccine recipients or their caregivers may also voluntarily report adverse events and vaccine injuries to public health. We suggest you send by registered mail.
Report the adverse event and injury to the Canadian National Vaccine Safety Network (CANVAS).
Report COVID-19 shot adverse events and injuries to VaxxTracker. VaxxTracker is independent from all government, pharmaceutical, or lobbying groups. Data summaries with monthly counts, top 10 reaction types, outcomes, and descriptions of symptoms are provided by VaxxTracker.
HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS – Report COVID-19 Shot Injuries
Health care providers are required by law to report adverse events and vaccine injury to monitor vaccine safety.
If a patient experiences an adverse event and injury following vaccination, please complete the appropriate form (Adverse Events Following Immunization), and send it to your local Health Unit in your province/territory.
Canadian Adverse Events Following Immunization Surveillance System (CAEFISS)
Watch these informative videos featuring lawyer Rocco Galati from the Constitutional Rights Centre (CRC) to learn more about your rights to decline COVID shots, and information about protecting your Charter rights and freedoms.
Disclaimer: This information is for educational purposes and is not intended as legal or medical advice.
Abp. Viganò’s considerations on the feared modification of Summorum Pontificum
Abp. Viganò’s considerations on the feared modification of Summorum Pontificum
‘Let us pray that the Divine Majesty … will deign to enlighten the Sacred Pastors so that they desist from their purpose and indeed promote the Tridentine Mass for the good of Holy Church and for the glory of the Most Holy Trinity.’ Thu Jun 10, 2021 – 11:25 am EST
June 10, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — On the occasion of the Philosophy Symposium dedicated to the memory of Msgr. Antonio Livi which was held in Venice on May 30 (here), I tried to identify the elements that constantly recur throughout history in the work of deception of the Evil One. In my examination (here), I focused on the fraud of the pandemic, showing how the reasons given to justify illegitimate coercive measures and no less illegitimate limitations of natural freedoms were in reality prophasis, that is, pretexts: ostensible reasons that are actually intended to conceal a malicious intent and a criminal design. The publication of Anthony Fauci’s emails (here) and the impossibility of censoring the ever more numerous voices of dissent with respect to the mainstream narrative have confirmed my analysis and allow us to hope for a blatant defeat of the supporters of the Great Reset.
In that address, you may recall, I dwelt on the fact that the Second Vatican Council was also in a certain way a Great Reset for the ecclesial body, like other historical events planned and designed in order to revolutionize the social body. Also in this case, the excuses given to legitimize liturgical reform, ecumenism, and the parliamentarization of the authority of the Sacred Pastors were not founded on good faith but on deceit and lies, in such a way so as to make us believe that we were renouncing things that were unquestionably good — the Apostolic Mass, the uniqueness of the Church as the means of salvation, the immutability of the Magisterium and the Authority of the Hierarchy — for the sake of a higher good. But as we know, not only did this higher good not come about (nor could it have), but in fact the true intent of the Council manifested itself in all its disruptive subversive value: churches were emptied, seminaries deserted, convents abandoned, authority discredited and perverted into tyranny for the sake of the wicked Pastors or rendered ineffective for the good ones. And we also know that the purpose of this reset, this devastating revolution, was from the very beginning iniquitous and malicious, despite being clothed in noble intentions in order to convince the faithful and the clergy to obey.
In 2007 Benedict XVI restored full citizenship to the venerable Tridentine liturgy, giving back to it the legitimacy that had been abusively denied it for fifty years. In his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum he declared:
It is therefore permitted to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal, which was promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated, as an extraordinary form of the Church’s Liturgy. […] For such a celebration with either Missal, the priest needs no permission from the Apostolic See or from his own Ordinary. (here)
In reality, the letter of the Motu Proprio and the implementing documents associated with it was never completely applied, and the cœtus fidelium who today celebrate in the Apostolic Rite continue to have to go to their Bishop to ask permission, essentially still abiding by the dictate of the Indult of the preceding Motu Proprio of John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei. The just honor in which the traditional liturgy ought to be held was tempered by its being placed on an equal level with the liturgy of the post-conciliar reform, with the former being defined as the “extraordinary form” and the latter as the “ordinary form,” as if the Bride of the Lamb could have two voices — one fully Catholic and another equivocally ecumenical — with which to speak at one moment to the Divine Majesty and at the next to the assembly of the faithful. But there is also no doubt that the liberalization of the Tridentine Mass has done much good, nourishing the spirituality of millions of people and bringing many souls closer to the Faith who, in the sterility of the reformed rite, have not found any incentive either for conversion or even less for spiritual growth.
Last year, displaying the typical behavior of the Innovators, the Holy See sent a questionnaire to the dioceses of the world in which they were asked to provide information about the implementation of Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio (here). The way in which the questions were written betrayed, once again, a second purpose, and the responses that were sent to Rome were supposed to create a basis of apparent legitimacy for imposing limitations on the Motu Proprio, if not its total abrogation. Certainly, if the author of Summorum Pontificum were still seated on the Throne, this questionnaire would have allowed the Pontiff to remind the Bishops that no priest needs to ask for permission to celebrate Mass in the ancient rite, nor may a priest be removed from ministry for doing so. But the real intention of those who wanted to consult the Ordinaries does not seem to reside in the salus animarum so much as in theological hatred against a rite that expresses with adamantine clarity the immutable Faith of the Holy Church, and which for this reason is alien to the conciliar ecclesiology, to its liturgy, and to the doctrine it presupposes and conveys. There is nothing more opposed to the so-called magisterium of Vatican II than the Tridentine liturgy: every prayer, every pericope — as liturgists would say — constitutes an affront to the delicate ears of the Innovators, every ceremony is an offense to their eyes. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
Simply tolerating that there are Catholics who want to drink from the sacred sources of that rite sounds like a defeat for them, one that is bearable only if it is limited to little groups of nostalgic elderly people or eccentric aesthetes. But if the “extraordinary form” — which is such in the ordinary sense of the word — becomes the norm for thousands of families, young people, and ordinary people who consciously choose it, then it becomes a stone of scandal and must be relentlessly opposed, limited, and abolished, since there must be no counter to the reformed liturgy, no alternative to the squalor of the conciliar rites — just as there can be no voice of dissent or argued refutation against the mainstream narrative, and just as effective treatments cannot be adopted in the face of the side effects of an experimental vaccine because they would demonstrate the latter’s uselessness.
Nor can we be surprised: Those who do not come from God are intolerant of everything that even remotely recalls an era in which the Catholic Church was governed by Catholic pastors and not by unfaithful pastors who abuse their authority; an era in which the Faith was preached in its integrity to the nations and not adulterated in order to please the world; an era in which those who hungered and thirsted for Truth were nourished and refreshed by a liturgy that was earthly in form but divine in substance. And if all that until yesterday was holy and good is now condemned and made an object of scorn, then allowing any trace of it to remain is inadmissible and constitutes an intolerable affront. Because the Tridentine Mass touches chords of the soul that the Montinian rite does not even begin to approach.
Obviously, those who maneuver behind the scenes in the Vatican to eliminate the Catholic Mass see decades of work compromised in the Motu Proprio, they see a threat against the possession of so many souls whom today they keep subjugated and their tyrannical hold over the ecclesial body weakened. The same priests and bishops who, like me, have rediscovered that inestimable treasure of faith and spirituality — or which by the grace of God they have never abandoned, despite the ferocious persecution of the post-council — are not disposed to renounce it, having found in it the soul of their Priesthood and the nourishment of their supernatural life. And it is disturbing, as well as scandalous, that in the face of the good that the Tridentine Mass brings to the Church, there are those who want to ban it or limit its celebration on the basis of specious reasons.
Yet, if we place ourselves in the shoes of the Innovators, we understand how perfectly consistent this is with their distorted vision of the Church, which for them is not a perfect society instituted by God for the salvation of souls but a human society in which an authority that is corrupt and subservient to the elite it favors steers the needs of the masses for vague spirituality, denying the purpose for which Our Lord willed it, and in which the good Pastors are constrained to inaction by bureaucratic shackles which they alone obey. This impasse, this juridical dead end, means that the abuse of authority can be imposed on subjects precisely in virtue of the fact that they recognize the voice of Christ in it, even in the face of evidence of the intrinsic wickedness of the orders that are given, the motivations that determine them, and the individuals who exercise it. On the other hand, even in the civil sphere, during the pandemic, many people obeyed absurd and harmful rules because they were imposed on them by doctors, virologists, and politicians who should have had the health and well-being of citizens at heart; and many did not want to believe, not even in the face of evidence of the criminal design, that they could directly intend the death or illness of millions of people. It is what social psychologists call cognitive dissonance, which induces individuals to take refuge in a comfortable niche of irrationality rather than recognize that they are victims of a colossal fraud and therefore having to react manfully.
So let us not ask ourselves why — in the face of the multiplication of communities tied to the ancient liturgy, the flowering of vocations almost exclusively in the context of the Motu Proprio, and the increase in the frequent reception of the Sacraments and consistency of Christian life among those who follow it — there is a desire to wickedly trample an inalienable right and hinder the Apostolic Mass: The question is wrong, and the answer would be misleading.
Let us ask ourselves, rather, why notorious heretics and fornicators without morals would tolerate their errors and their deplorable way of life being placed into question by a minority of the faithful and clergy without protectors when they have the power to prevent it. At this point we understand well that this aversion cannot fail to be made explicit precisely by putting an end to the Motu Proprio, abusing a usurped and perverted authority. Even at the time of the Protestant pseudo-Reformation, tolerance towards certain liturgical customs rooted in the people was short-lived, because those devotions to the Virgin Mary, those hymns in Latin, those bells rung at the Elevation — which no longer existed — necessarily had to disappear, since they expressed a Faith that Luther’s followers had denied. And it would be absurd to hope that there could be a peaceful coexistence between the Novus and Vetus Ordo, as well as between the Catholic Mass and the Lutheran Lord’s Supper, given the ontological incompatibility between them. On closer inspection, at least the defeat of the Vetus hoped for by the supporters of the Novus is consistent with their principles, just as the defeat of the Novus by the Vetus should likewise be hoped for. They are mistaken, therefore, who believe that it is possible to hold together two opposing forms of Catholic worship in the name of a plurality of liturgical expression that is the daughter of the conciliar mentality no more and no less than it is the daughter of the hermeneutic of continuity.
The modus operandi of the Innovators emerges once again in this operation against the Motu Proprio: First some of the most fanatical opponents of the traditional liturgy call for the abrogation of Summorum Pontificum as a provocation, calling the ancient Mass “divisive.” Then the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asks the Ordinaries to respond to a questionnaire (here), the answers to which are practically pre-packaged (the Bishop’s career depends on the way he goes along with what he reports to the Holy See, because the content of his responses to the questionnaire will also be made known to the Congregation of Bishops). Then, with a nonchalant air, during a closed-door meeting with the members of the Italian Episcopate, Bergoglio says that he is concerned about seminarians “who seem good, but are rigid” (here) and the spread of the traditional liturgy, always reiterating that the conciliar liturgical reform is irreversible. Furthermore, he appoints a bitter enemy of the Vetus Ordo as Prefect of Divine Worship who will be an ally in the application of any future restrictions. Finally, we learn that Cardinals Parolin and Ouellet are among the first to desire this downsizing of the Motu Proprio (here). This obviously leads “conservative” Prelates to come scurrying in defense of the present system of the co-existence of the two forms, ordinary and extraordinary, giving Francis the opportunity to show that he is the prudent moderator of two opposing currents by moving towards “only” a limitation of Summorum Pontificum rather than its total abrogation: which — as we know — was exactly what he was aiming for from the start of his operation.
Regardless of the final outcome, the deus ex machina of this predictable play is, as always, Bergoglio, who is even ready to take credit for a gesture of clement indulgence towards conservatives as well as unloading the responsibilities for a restrictive application onto the new Prefect, Archbishop Arthur Roche, and his followers. Thus, in the event of a choral protest of the faithful and an unhinged reaction by the Prefect or other Prelates, once again Bergoglio will enjoy the clash between progressives and traditionalists, since he will then have excellent arguments to affirm that the coexistence of the two forms of the Roman Rite causes divisions in the Church and that it is thus more prudent to return to the pax montiniana, that is, the total proscription of the Mass of all time.
I exhort my Brothers in the Episcopate, Priests, and laity to strenuously defend their right to the Catholic liturgy solemnly sanctioned by the Bull Quo Primum of Saint Pius V, and by means of it to defend the Holy Church and the Papacy, which have both been exposed to discredit and ridicule by the Pastors themselves. The question of the Motu Proprio is not in the least negotiable, because it reaffirms the legitimacy of a rite that has never been abrogated nor is able to be abrogated. Furthermore, in addition to the certain damage that airing these novelties will cause to souls and to the certain advantage that will come from them to the Devil and his servants, there is also added the indecorous rudeness displayed to Benedict XVI, who is still living, by Bergoglio, who ought to know that the authority the Roman Pontiff exercises over the Church is vicarious and that the power which he holds comes to him from Our Lord Jesus Christ, the One Head of the Mystical Body. Abusing the Apostolic authority and the power of the Holy Keys for a purpose opposed to that for which they were instituted by the Lord represents an unheard-of offense against the Majesty of God, a dishonor for the Church, and a sin for which he will have to answer to the One whose Vicar he is. And whoever refuses the title of Vicar of Christ knows that by doing so the legitimacy of his authority also fails.
It is not acceptable for the supreme authority of the Church to allow itself to cancel, in a disturbing operation of cancel culture in a religious key, the inheritance it has received from its Fathers; nor is it permissible to consider as being outside of the Church those who are not prepared to accept the privation of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated in the form that has molded almost two thousand years of Saints. The Church is not an agency in which the marketing office decides to cancel old products from the catalog and propose new ones in their stead according to customer requests. Imposing the liturgical revolution with force on priests and the faithful in the name of obedience to the Council, stripping away from them the very soul of the Christian life and replacing it with a rite that the Freemason Bugnini copied from Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer, was already painful. That abuse, partially healed by Benedict XVI with the Motu Proprio, cannot be repeated in any way now in the presence of elements that are all largely in favor of the liberalization of the ancient liturgy. If one really wanted to help the people of God in this crisis, the reformed liturgy should have been abolished, which in fifty years has caused more damage than Calvinism has done.
We do not know if the feared restrictions that the Holy See intends to make to the Motu Proprio will affect diocesan priests, or if they will also affect the Institutes whose members celebrate the ancient rite exclusively. I fear, however, as I have already had the occasion to say in the past, that it will be precisely on the latter that the demolishing action of the Innovators will be unleashed, who can perhaps tolerate the ceremonial aspects of the Tridentine liturgy but absolutely do not accept adherence to the doctrinal and ecclesiological structure that they imply, which contrasts sharply with the conciliar deviations that the Innovators want to impose without exception. This is why it is to be feared that these Institutes will be asked to make some form of submission to the conciliar liturgy, for example by making the celebration of the Novus Ordo mandatory at least occasionally, as diocesan priests must already do. In this way, whoever makes use of the Motu Proprio will be constrained not only to an implicit acceptance of the reformed liturgy but also to a public acceptance of the new rite and its doctrinal mens. And whoever celebrates the two forms of the rite will find himself ipso facto discredited above all in his consistency, passing off his liturgical choices as a merely aesthetic — I would say almost choreographic — in fact, depriving him of any sort of critical judgment towards the Montinian Mass and the mens that gives it form: because he will find himself forced to celebrate that Mass. This is a malicious and cunning operation, in which an authority that abuses its power delegitimizes those who oppose it, on the one hand by granting the ancient rite, but on the other hand making it a merely aesthetic question and obligating an insidious bi-ritualism and an even more insidious adherence to two opposing and contrasting doctrinal approaches. But how can a priest be asked to celebrate a venerable and holy rite in which he finds perfect coherence between doctrine, ceremony, and life at one moment, and at the next a falsified rite that winks at heretics and contemptibly keeps silent about what the other proudly proclaims?
Let us pray, therefore: Let us pray that the Divine Majesty, to which we render perfect worship celebrating the venerable ancient rite, will deign to enlighten the Sacred Pastors so that they desist from their purpose and indeed promote the Tridentine Mass for the good of Holy Church and for the glory of the Most Holy Trinity. Let us invoke the Holy Patrons of the Mass — Saint Gregory the Great, Saint Pius V, and Saint Pius X in primis, and all the Saints who over the course of the centuries have celebrated the Holy Sacrifice in the form that has been handed down to us, so that we may faithfully preserve it. May their intercession before the throne of God beg for the preservation of the Mass of all time, thanks to which we are sanctified, strengthened in virtue, and able to resist the attacks of the Evil One. And if ever the sins of the men of the Church should merit for us a punishment so severe as that prophesied by Daniel, let us prepare to descend into the catacombs, offering this trial for the conversion of the Shepherds.
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
9 June 2021
Feria IV infra Hebdomadam II post Octavam Pentecostes
Indian Bar Association serves legal notice to chief WHO scientist for misinformation on ivermectin
Dr. Soumya Swaminathan is accused of ‘[r]unning a disinformation campaign against Ivermectin by deliberate suppression of effectiveness of drug Ivermectin as prophylaxis and for treatment of COVID-19.’ Thu Jun 10, 2021 – 11:56 am EST
June 8, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — On May 25, the Indian Bar Association served a legal notice to Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, a Chief Scientist for the World Health Organization (WHO), relating to the harm she allegedly caused the people of India by campaigning against the use of ivermectin.
A legal notice is a formal document informing a person of the grievances laid against him or her, outlining the potentially forthcoming legal action, and giving the person an opportunity to rectify the conflict before it goes to court.
The Indian Bar Association, a non-profit, non-governmental association constituted by many legal professionals in India, accused Swaminathan of “[r]unning a disinformation campaign against Ivermectin by deliberate suppression of effectiveness of drug Ivermectin as prophylaxis and for treatment of COVID-19, despite the existence of large amounts of clinical data compiled and presented by esteemed, highly qualified, experienced medical doctors and scientists.”
Additionally, Swaminathan was accused of “[i]ssuing statements in social media and mainstream media, thereby influencing the public against the use of Ivermectin and attacking the credibility of acclaimed bodies/institutes like ICMR and AIIMS, Delhi, which have included ‘Ivermectin’ in the ‘National Guidelines for COVID-19 management.’”
The notice listed eight elements in particular, including not just Swaminathan’s statements against the use of ivermectin, but also the “extensive studies and trials that prove effectiveness of Ivermectin in treatment of COVID-19,” and the cases in the U.S. where infected and critically ill seniors successfully recovered after the use of this medicine. The notice quoted several recovered patients witnessing to their successful use of ivermectin.
See below an astonishing video program from TrialSite News in which moderator Shabnam Palesa Mohamed engages a panel consisting of Advocate Dipali Ohja of the Indian Bar Association (IAB), Dr Pierre Kory (FLCCC), and Dr Tess Lawrie (EBMC) about the IAB’s decision to issue legal notice on WHO chief scientist, Dr Soumya Swaminathan. The speakers reveal the criminal actions and severely wrong Covid-related directions by the WHO and its opposition to Ivermectin that have led to the otherwise preventable loss of hundreds of thousands and perhaps a million or more lives internationally. https://www.youtube.com/embed/WenJhxVWekU SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
In Buffalo, New York, the courts had ordered the hospitals to administer Ivermectin to an elderly woman, the legal notice pointed out. Her family’s response was:
“While she was on the ventilator, we prayed for Mom. We prayed to God, and the answer that came back to us was Ivermectin,” the daughter said. “My brother was doing some research on his own and came up with the information about Ivermectin. Nothing else was helping our mother. We read that Ivermectin was helping other people and had no dangerous side effects. We decided we had to try it.” The daughter said her mother made “a complete turnaround” within days of her first doses of Ivermectin.
Ivermectin, as explained by the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, “is a well-known, FDA-approved anti-parasite drug that has been used successfully for more than four decades” to treat parasitic diseases. “It is on the WHO’s list of essential medicines … and has won the Nobel prize for its global and historic impacts in eradicating endemic parasitic infections in many parts of the world.”
The 51-page legal notice goes into detail regarding Swaminathan’s position on Ivermectin in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, the “falling standards of the World Health Organization,” and the “commendable work by select courageous medical doctors who have lived up to their Hippocratic Oath.”
Dr. Swaminathan has spoken out publicly against the use of Ivermectin in the fight against the coronavirus. In one Twitter post (which has since been removed), for example, Swaminathan commented: “Safety and efficacy are important when using any drug for a new indication. [The WHO] recommends against the use of ivermectin for [COVID-19] except within clinical trials.”
Just before her tweet, the government of the Indian state of Goa decided to administer Ivermectin to all citizens over 18 years of age, whether or not they tested positive for COVID-19.
Defending this decision, Goa Joint Secretary (Health) Vikas Gaunekar stated, “Various studies conducted in different countries have shown that the medicine [Ivermectin] has a positive effect on prevention and treatment/cure of patients.”
He continued, calling out the WHO, “There are some reports which have found that the analysis by WHO on this medicine is flawed and that the mortality rate is actually much lower if the said medicine is used for early treatment as well as prophylaxis.”
Gaunekar also referred to the website www.ivmmeta.com which tracks in real-time the effects of Ivermectin as an early treatment for the coronavirus. The site reports high success rates with the use of this drug. — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Fire Fauci and investigate him now!
57,566 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 60,000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
The use of ivermectin is being promoted by a number of organizations and governments because of its success rate in treating COVID.
The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) is also promoting the use of ivermectin to fight the virus. In a statement released on May 12, 2021, the alliance wrote, “Awareness of ivermectin’s efficacy and its adoption by physicians worldwide to successfully treat COVID-19 have grown exponentially over the past several months.”
“Oddly, however, even as the clinical trials data and successful ivermectin treatment experiences continue to mount, so too have the criticisms and outright recommendations against the use of ivermectin by the vast majority, though not all, of public health agencies (PHA), concentrated largely in North America and Europe.”
The FLCCC strongly criticized the WHO’s position against ivermectin as both inaccurate and limited: “We must emphasize this critical fact: If the WHO had more accurately assessed the quality of evidence as ‘moderate certainty,’ consistent with the multiple independent research teams above, ivermectin would instead become the standard of care worldwide, similar to what occurred after the dexamethasone evidence finding decreased mortality was graded as moderate quality, which then led to its immediate global adoption in the treatment of moderate to severe COVID-19 in July of 2020.”
In the summer of 2020, Mexico City embarked on a similar journey as Goa insofar as they also administered ivermectin against the WHO’s recommendations and witnessed a drastic decrease in both hospitalizations and deaths.
LifeSiteNews has been permanently banned on YouTube. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
June 9, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The U.S. Department of Defense announced last week that it will keep a policy enacted under President Donald Trump banning LGBT “pride” flags at U.S. military bases.
“After some careful consideration, the department will maintain the existing policy from July of 2020 regarding the display or depiction of unofficial flags,” department spokesman John Kirby said Friday. “There won’t be an exception made this month for the Pride flag.”
Guidance on flags authorized last year by then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper was meant to prohibit the Confederate flag, though it also applies to other symbols, including homosexual “pride” flags.
The Pentagon will maintain the Trump-era policy due to “concern about other challenges,” Kirby said. The move was not intended to reflect “any lack of respect or admiration” for “the LGBTQ+ community,” he assured the press. — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: No BLM flag at American embassies!
39,982 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 40,000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
The Biden administration’s State Department, by contrast, employs much looser guidance, with U.S. embassies hoisting the “pride” flag across the world this month, including at the Holy See, with approval from Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
Blinken also has granted embassies “blanket written authorization for calendar 2021” to fly the “Black Lives Matter” flag, as several have done already.
It remains unclear whether Joe Biden will challenge the Defense Department’s decision. While a candidate for president, Biden promised that he would allow “pride” flags at military facilities. “Banning the LGBTQ Pride flag — the very symbol of diversity and inclusion — is undeniably wrong,” he said last July. “The Pentagon should ensure it is authorized, or as President, I will.
Biden’s proposed budget for 2022 uses term ‘birthing people’ instead of ‘mothers’
‘All they’ve done is create new reductionistic terms for women,’ said Ryan T. Anderson, president of the conservative think tank Ethics & Public Policy Center. Wed Jun 9, 2021 – 12:54 pm EST
WASHINGTON, June 9, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — President Joe Biden’s 2022 budget proposal is using the word “birthing people” instead of “mothers,” attempting to formalize the “inclusive” phrase born of radical transgender ideology.
Released on May 28, the 72-page proposal for the 2022 fiscal year includes a section detailing the budget’s provisions intended to reduce maternal mortality and end “Race-Based Disparities in Maternal Mortality.”
In a subsection under the heading entitled “Build Back Better,” a phrase tightly associated with the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset agenda, a radical global socialist plan which seeks to “press the reset button on capitalism, transforming everything about our society,” Biden’s budget earmarks over $200 million in spending to help end the “high rate of maternal mortality and race-based disparities in outcomes among birthing people.”
“All they’ve done is create new reductionistic terms for women,” said Ryan T. Andersonin a tweet Monday. Anderson, a former senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and currently the president of the Ethics & Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C., added: “The old words work just fine. Keep using them.”
The use of the phrase “birthing people” in the budget comes after Missouri Congresswoman Cori Bush told Congress in May she was “committed to doing the absolute most to … protect black birthing people.”
Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, founder of the Ruth Institute, a global non-profit dedicated to defending the family, told LifeSiteNews the phrase “birthing people” was “propaganda,” and suggested that the appearance of the term in official documents like the 2022 budget proposal is a way of “getting people worn down so that the word ‘mother’ is removed from their thought process.” SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
“Persons are being reduced to a collection of functions,” Morse added.
The author and co-author of five books has spoken around the world on topics relating to marriage, family and human sexuality. Morse was also a campaign spokeswoman for California’s Proposition 8 in 2008, which defined marriage as the union between a man and a woman, but was later overturned in the court system.
Morse said those who promote transgender ideology are “very sophisticated” at manipulating words to construct a new vision of reality. “You can’t use their language,” she said. “That’s not negotiable. You cannot use their language.”
Meanwhile, pro-abortion lobby group NARAL Pro-Choice America defended the use of the term “birthing people” in the proposed 2022 budget, tweeting on May 6, “We use gender neutral language when talking about pregnancy, because it’s not just cis-gender women that can get pregnant and give birth. Reproductive freedom is for *every* body.”
Katy Faust, founder and director of Them Before Us, a non-profit committed to advancing social policies to defend the rights of children, told LifeSiteNews that using phrases like “birthing person,” which carries the implication that men are capable of bearing children, is “insisting on the imaginary” while “rejecting the biological reality” that only women can be mothers.
Faust, a regular contributor at The Federalist, said her organization “Them Before Us” profiles children who have experienced the loss of their mother or father, and said “the heart of a human child” wants “both their mom and dad.”
Children whose parents have “transitioned” to take on another gender identity, she said, experience the change as “a sort of death,” as the “gender-specific manifestation really mattered to them.”
“It’s too bad,” Faust said, “that this administration is negating not just biological reality, but … the cry of every child’s heart.”
Faust, who has advocated on behalf of children with lawmakers in the U.S. and overseas, including at the United Nations, said the 2022 budget’s formal adoption of the term “birthing people” amounts to “a massive power grab for the state.”
“When biology does not determine who is a mother and who is a father,” Faust explained, “then the state gets to determine who is a mother and who is a father.”
“It is a massive attempt to control language, and if you can control language you can control lives,” she said. — Article continues below Petition — PETITION: Protect U.S. election integrity and oppose dangerous H.R. 1
30,804 have signed the petition.Let’s get to 35,000! Add your signature: Show Petition Text Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Faust said conservatives must “fortify themselves” and use their platforms to combat the rapidly changing definitions of words and the replacement of traditional concepts with new phrases that align with radical ideology and deny fundamental realities.
“You’re going to either align with reality, or you will have to constantly appease this ideological dystopia that the left is increasingly pushing.”
“So much of what they’re doing right now runs up against not just natural law in a philosophical sense but natural reality,” Faust said. “It’s unsustainable. The question is how many people’s lives, especially children’s lives, are they going to ruin in the meantime?”
30 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, Christian culture is reviving in Russia
Besides being a popular columnist and reporter in Denmark, Iben Thranholm is a theologian and convert to Catholicism from the Lutheran Church. Wed Jun 9, 2021 – 5:49 pm EST
June 9, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In this episode of The Van Maren Show, Jonathon interviews Danish journalist Iben Thranholm about the revival of Christianity and traditional values in Russia, as well as the growing secularism and wokeism in the West and the ramifications of the coronavirus pandemic and lockdowns. https://rumble.com/embed/vfp6n3/?pub=7phg5
Besides being a popular columnist and reporter in Denmark, Thranholm is a theologian and convert to Catholicism from the Lutheran Church. As a journalist, she has written extensively on Russia and on how Christianity is reviving in old Communist countries ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. After visiting Moscow several years ago, she describes how symbols of Christianity are openly expressed in the public sphere.
Thranholm highlights how many people in the West believe Russia still is evil. She says that people have not been told by the mainstream media that Christian, Western civilization and Russia share many cultural roots in the faith. “[The Russian people] just want to rebuild their Russian culture … and the heart of Russian culture is Orthodoxy.”
Thranholm discusses the growing influence of “woke” culture and the transformation of gender roles in the West. She says that in Denmark traditional roles for men and women have become so distorted “that every second marriage in my country will end in a divorce.” She states that Russia has become very attractive to people because it has revived a sense of moral values, similar to 1950s America, with an “old traditional lifestyle.”
Lastly, Thranholm talks about how COVID-19 has become the new “false religion.” She points out that other ideologies have also been turned into “religions,” including the climate change movement. She says that the culture has easily accepted coronavirus regulations because it “is not now driven by faith, but by fear.” https://embed.acast.com/5c17be52dd8edbe57a32cb08/60c12e9b24d6f60013f78ada?cover=true
The widow of the Dean of the Vatican Ambassador Corps uncovers a web of financial and sex abuse coverups that leads to the top of the Vatican hierarchy
For almost forty years, Martha Alegría Reichmann and her husband, Ambassador Alejandro Valladares, were among the closest friends of Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, the influential archbishop and cardinal appointed to lead Pope Francis’ elite Council of Cardinal Advisers, and dubbed the « vice pope » by the Italian media. They were equally close friends with his auxiliary bishop and close companion, Juan José Pineda Fasquelle. They shared their home and their lives with the duo, and Valladares was instrumental in obtaining Maradiaga’s appointment to the cardinalate.
In the space of a few short years their illusions about the two prelates would be shattered completely. The Valladares’ life savings would be lost in a fraudulent investment scheme promoted to them by the cardinal, who had suddenly begun to act as if he did not know them. After falling afoul of a close male friend of Bishop Pineda, the prelate would refuse to return precious historical documents that they had lent to him, and would begin a whispering campaign to end Valladares’s ambassadorship.
As Martha Alegría, finally widowed and desperate, searched for answers and sought justice from the Holy See, reporters would uncover evidence that Maradiaga himself had lost over a million dollars in the same financial scam, and that the pair had taken millions more unaccounted-for funds from the University of Honduras and the Honduran government. Even worse, large sums had been spent by Bishop Pineda on close male friends who lived with him at the bishop’s residence, and he was now accused of sexual predation against seminarians.
However, Alegría’s worst shock was still to come. After she took her case to the highest prelates in the Vatican, and ultimately to Pope Francis himself, she found that Maradiaga was untouchable, and despite his promises to Alegría, the pope would not, or could not, do anything to correct his lieutenant. Maradiaga was untouchable, enjoying absolute impunity under the protection of Pope Francis. « Sacred Betrayals: A widow raises her voice against the corruption of the Francis papacy » tells Martha Alegría’s story of betrayal and her painful realization regarding the true state of the Holy See.
Sacred Betrayals: A widow raises her voice against the corruption of the Francis papacy
“Alegría’s testimony regarding Cardinal Maradiaga’s involvement of their family in a fraudulent financial scheme, as well as his defense and cover-ups of his auxiliary bishop is deeply shocking. More disturbing is her revelation that Francis continues to protect Maradiaga despite all the misdeeds for which Maradiaga has made himself personally responsible.”
— From the foreword by Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States
“This book is dynamite! The compelling testimony of Martha Alegria Reichmann — a widow betrayed by a powerful cardinal she had once considered a close friend — has the power to break down the wall of silence that protects Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga, and expose the corruption that reaches to the very top of the Vatican.”
— Philip Lawler, editor of Catholic World News, author of Lost Shepherd: How Pope Francis is Misleading his Flock
“We have here just one case study of the vast corruption in the Church that flourishes under Pope Francis, and of the Pope’s hypocrisy in promoting it. As the author remarks: ‘One gets the impression that the devil is gradually taking over the institutions of the Church.’”
Man reverted to Catholicism under Pope Benedict, now says ‘Rome is lost’ and praises Islam
Br. Seraphim Mary said the man’s ‘struggle seems rooted in needing an authority in matters of faith and morality in a time of mundane confusion.’ Thu Jun 10, 2021 – 3:50 pm EST
June 10, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — An Anglo-Catholic religious revealed that a man who turned to Islam and then reverted back to Catholicism because of Pope Benedict XVI has once again embraced Islam because of his grievances with “Rome.”
“I gave pastoral care today to a Roman Catholic who had embraced Islam and returned to Catholicism due to the Papacy. He said, ‘that under Benedict XVI he saw genuine rules of play in a rudderless world’. Today he said that Rome is lost, and that the Qur’an is the road to truth,” tweeted Brother Seraphim Mary, OSF, who is an Oblate with the Franciscan Order of the Divine Compassion.
One Twitter user commented, “Fortunately, we don’t pick our Popes, we obey them”
Br. Seraphim Mary responded, “His point was more about providing clear doctrine, not blind obedience. The struggle seems rooted in needing an authority in matters of faith and morality in a time of mundane confusion.”
Many Catholics have observed that there has been an almost unceasing flurry of confusion over the meaning of Pope Francis’ public, and, at times, reported private statements and writings, which often elicit unorthodoxinterpretations of Catholic morals, and subsequent attempts at damage control.
This pattern led Carl Olson, editor of Catholic World Report, to concur with the opinion of First Things editor Matthew Schmitz that Pope Francis is “trying to soften Church teaching.” SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
“Personally, I see no way around that conclusion,” wrote Olson. “After all, if Francis never meant to change or soften Church teaching, why the constant reliance on Cardinal Kasper and other Germans, the two Synods, the regular confusion, the jostling and posturing, the endless ‘gestures,’ the angry address at the conclusion of the 2015 Synod, the often tortured and purposeful ambiguity of chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, and so forth?”
Among the most momentous examples of Pope Francis’s apparent break with the Church’s moral teaching are his endorsement of Holy Communion for the divorced and “remarried” in some cases, and his support of civil unions for homosexual couples.
Numerous Catholic clergy and laymen have called for clarification of Church teaching as a response to his persistent ambiguity or misleading statements on certain moral teachings.
Some Catholic commentators have co-opted the term “Francis effect” — originally used to describe the Pope’s ostensibly positive “reform” of the Church — and turned it on its head, claiming that the practice of Catholicism has weakened under Pope Francis.
Father Linus Clovis of Family Life International takes the “Francis Effect” to mean an undermining of traditional Catholic teaching, asserting that “traditional minded” clergy, and even laity, “[i]n holding to the traditional Catholic moral teaching and order,” “would soon be accused of being more Catholic than the pope.”
“This disarming of the clergy and hierarchy constitutes the Francis Effect,” he added.
Biden health chief refuses to say whether partial-birth abortion is illegal
Xavier Becerra, previously the Attorney General of California, repeatedly evaded giving a straight yes-or-no answer to the question. Fri Jun 11, 2021 – 4:25 pm EST
WASHINGTON, June 11, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Biden administration Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Xavier Becerra repeatedly refused to answer whether partial-birth abortion is illegal during a congressional hearing Thursday, raising fresh doubts about the Biden administration’s willingness to enforce federal law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court more than a decade ago.
Becerra, previously the Attorney General of California, repeatedly evaded giving a straight yes-or-no answer to the question in response to grilling by Republican Sen. Steve Daines of Montana:
“Is it illegal?” Daines asked. Becerra began to instead assert a woman’s “right” to pre-viability abortions under Roe v. Wade, but was cut off by Daines, who restated the question. During a minute-long exchange, Becerra would say only that it was a “technical question,” and that “a woman has the right to receive an abortion.”
In fact, former President George W. Bush signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act into law in 2003, and the Supreme Court upheld it in 2007 with Gonzales v. Carhart. President Joe Biden, then a Senator representing Delaware, was among the Democrats who voted in favor of the ban.
In the years since, however, Biden has jettisoned all of his former more moderate views on abortion in favor of an absolutist “pro-choice” agenda that includes forcing all 50 states to allow effectively-unlimited abortion at taxpayer expense. Biden abandoned the last vestige of his pro-life past during the 2020 Democrat presidential primary, when he dropped his support for the Hyde amendment (which bars direct federal funding of most abortions) after just a day of pressure from left-wing activists. SUBSCRIBE to LifeSite’s daily headlines U.S. Canada World Catholic
In light of Biden’s opposition to letting states enact even modest protections for the preborn, Becerra’s answer raises suspicions that refusing to recognize a federal pro-life law is a signal that the Biden administration has no intention of enforcing it.
Beccera’s testimony comes as little surprise in light of his record. As attorney general of the Golden State, Becerra showed a marked hostility to Americans who follow Judeo-Christian teaching on matters such as abortion and homosexuality, from forcing churches to subsidize elective abortions and nuns to subsidize contraceptives, to forcing pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise abortion resources, to refusing to fund state employees’ travel to South Carolina in protest of its law protecting adoption agencies that insist on giving children both a mother and a father
By Doug Mainwaring
By Kenton Biffert
By Ashley Sadler
By Emily Mangiaracina
By Calvin Freiburger
naufrage/sauvetage 