January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Leo Kelly was one of the first men to breach the Capitol building and go inside with dozens of others. In this exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews correspondent Jim Hale, Leo talks about his conflicted feelings about what he did, and why he felt it was necessary.
All articles from January 6, 2021
Twitter suspends Trump’s account for 12 hours, threatens permanent ban
Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news. Subscribe now.
LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – After deleting two tweets from President Donald Trump today – the first time that Twitter has removed Trump’s posts – the social media platform temporarily blocked his account.
Twitter initially prevented users from engaging with a video posted by Trump, in which the president encouraged peace and told supporters to “go home,” claiming that it posed “a risk of violence.”
A tweet posted this evening by Twitter Safety stated, “The account of @realDonaldTrump will be locked for 12 hours following the removal of these Tweets. If the Tweets are not removed, the account will remain locked.”
This means that the account of @realDonaldTrump will be locked for 12 hours following the removal of these Tweets. If the Tweets are not removed, the account will remain locked.— Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety) January 7, 2021
“Future violations of the Twitter Rules, including our Civic Integrity or Violent Threats policies, will result in permanent suspension of the @realDonaldTrump account,” Twitter added.
“We’ll continue to evaluate the situation in real time, including examining activity on the ground and statements made off Twitter,” they continued.
Twitter also removed accounts of prominent Trump supporters today, including Stop the Steal activist Michael Coudrey.
The blacklisting of President Trump follows pressure from liberal, anti-Trump investors and users. It also comes two weeks after new legal challenges were brought against the company due to its role in censoring the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story that would have seriously damaged Joe Biden's electoral chances.
An analysis has shown that the Big Tech giant censored Trump 65 times during his re-election campaign while leaving Biden communications completely untouched.
Trump’s Jan. 6 full speech: ‘We will never concede when theft is involved’
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – President Trump gave the following address at the March to Save America at the White House Ellipse in Washington D.C. on January 6 about noon. His words have been transcribed by LifeSiteNews.
Media will not show the magnitude of this crowd, even I when I turned on today, I looked and I saw thousands of people here.
But you don't see hundreds of thousands of people behind you because they don't want to show that we have hundreds of thousands of people here. And I just want them to be recognized by the fake news media.
Turn your cameras, please, and show what's really happening out here, because these people are not going to take it any longer. They're not going to take it any longer.
Go ahead. Turn your cameras, please. Would you show they came from all over the world, actually, but they came from all over the country. I just really want to see what they do.
I just want to see how they cover it. I've never seen anything like it, but, it would be really great if we could be covered fairly by the media, the media is the biggest problem we have as far as I'm concerned, single biggest problem, the fake news and the big tech, big tech is now coming into their own. We beat them four years ago. We surprised them. We took them by surprise and this year they rigged it election. They rigged it like they've never rigged an election before. And by the way, last night, they didn't do a bad job either, if you notice. I'm honest and I just again, I want to thank you. It's just a great honor to have this kind of crowd and to be before you and hundreds of thousands of American patriots who are committed to the honesty of our elections and the integrity of our glorious republic. All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they're doing and stolen by the fake news media.
That's what they've done and what they're doing. We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen.
You don't concede when there's theft involved.
Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that's what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will 'stop the steel.' Today, I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election and we won it by a landslide. This was not a close election. You know, I say sometimes jokingly, but there's no joke about it. I've been in two elections. I won them both. And the second one, I won much bigger than the first. OK. Almost seventy five million people voted for our campaign, the most of any incumbent president by far in the history of our country, 12 million more people than four years ago.
And I was told by the real pollsters, we do have real pollsters, they know that we were going to do well and we were going to win.
Well. I was told if I went from sixty three million, which we had four years ago, to sixty six million, there was no chance of losing. Well, we didn't go to sixty six, we went to seventy five million and they say we lost. We didn't lose.
And by the way, does anybody believe that Joe had 80 million votes? does anybody believe that?
He had 80 million computer votes. It's a disgrace. There's never been anything like that. You could take Third World countries, just take a look, take third world countries. Their elections are more honest than what we've been going through in this country.
It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace.
Even when you look at last night, they're all running around like chickens with their heads cut off with boxes and nobody knows what the hell is going on.
There's never been anything like this. We will not let them silence your voices. We're not going to let it happen, not going to let it happen.
And I'd love to have if those tens of thousands of people would be allowed — the military, the Secret Service that we want to thank you and the police, law enforcement, great, you're doing a great job — but I'd love it if they could be allowed to come up here with us.
Is that possible? Can you just let them come up, please?
And Rudy, you did a great job.
He's got guts, you know what, he's got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican Party. He's got guts, he fights, he fights.
And I'll tell you. Thank you very much, John. Fantastic job. I watched... that's a tough act to follow those two.
John is one of the most brilliant lawyers in the country, and he looked at this and he said, 'What an absolute disgrace that this can be happening to our Constitution.' And he looked at Mike Pence, and I hope Mike is going to do the right thing.
I hope so. I hope so, because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is from the number one or certainly one of the top constitutional lawyers in our country, he has the absolute right to do it — we're supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our constitution and protect our Constitution — states want to revoke, the state's got defrauded, they were given false information, they voted on it.
Now they want to recertify, they want it back.
All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president, and you are the happiest people. And I actually I just spoke to Mike, I said, Mike, that doesn't take courage.
What takes courage is to do nothing. That takes courage.
And then we're stuck with a president who lost the election by a lot and we have to live with that for four more years.
We're just not going to let that happen. Many of you have traveled from all across the nation to be here.
And I want to thank you for the extraordinary love — that's what it is, there's never been a movement like this ever, ever — for the extraordinary love for this amazing country and this amazing movement. Thank you.
By the way, this goes all the way back past the Washington Monument, you believe this? Look at this.
Unfortunately, they gave the press the prime seats, I can't stand. But you look at that behind, I wish they'd flip those cameras and look behind you.
That is the most amazing sight. When they make a mistake, you get to see it on television. Amazing. Amazing. All the way back.
And don't worry, we will not take the name off the Washington Monument. We will not cancel culture. You know, they wanted to get rid of the Jefferson Memorial, either take it down or just put somebody else in there. I don't think that's going to happen. It damn well better not.
Although with this administration, if this happens, it could happen. You'll see some really bad things happen. They'll knock out Lincoln, too, by the way, they've been taking his statue down. But then we signed a little law. You hurt our monuments, you hurt our heroes. You go to jail for 10 years and everything stopped. You notice that it stopped.
It all stopped.
And they could use Rudy back in New York City. Rudy, they could use you. Your city is going to hell. They want Rudy Giuliani back in New York. We'll get a little younger version of Rudy. Is that OK, Rudy?
We gathered together in the heart of our nation's capital for one very, very basic and simple reason, to save our democracy.
You know, most candidates on election evening and of course, this thing goes on so long, they still don't have any idea what the votes are.
We still have congressional seats under review. They have no idea. They've totally lost control. They've used the pandemic as a way of defrauding the people in a proper election.
But, you know, you know, when you see this and when you see what's happening, number one, they all say, sir, we will never let it happen again.
I said, that's good, but what about eight weeks ago? You know, they try and get you to go.
They say, sir, in four years, you're guaranteed. I said, I'm not interested right now. Do me a favor. Go back eight weeks. I want to go back eight weeks. Let's go back eight weeks.
We want to go back and we want to get this right because we're going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed and we're not going to stand for that.
For years, Democrats have gotten away with election fraud and weak Republicans, and that's what they are. There's so many weak Republicans and we have great ones – Jim Jordan and some of these guys, they're out there fighting, the House guys are fighting. But it's incredible. Many of the Republicans I helped them get in. I helped them get elected. I helped Mitch get elected.
I helped... I could name twenty four of them, let's say. I won't bore you with it. And then all of a sudden you have something like this and it's like, oh, gee, maybe I'll talk to the president sometime later.
No, it's amazing, they're weak Republicans, they're pathetic Republicans. And that's what happens.
If this happened to the Democrats, there'd be hell all over the country going on.
There'd be hell all over the country. But just remember this: you're stronger, you're smarter, you've got more going than anybody. And they try and demean everybody having to do with us. And you're the real people. You're the people that built this nation.
You're not the people that tore down our nation.
The weak Republicans, and that's it, I really believe it, I think I'm going to use the term the weak Republicans, you got a lot of them and you got a lot of great ones, but you've got a lot of weak ones. They've turned a blind eye even as Democrats enacted policies that chipped away our jobs, weakened our military, threw open our borders and put America last. Did you see the other day where Joe Biden said, 'I want to get rid of the America first policy?' What's that all about? Get rid of? How do you say I want to get rid of America first?
Even if you're going to do it, don't talk about it. Right?
Unbelievable what we have to go through.
What we have to go through and you have to get your people to fight, and if they don't fight, we have to 'primary' the hell out of the ones that don't fight. You primary them.
We're going to, we're going to let you know who they are.
I can already tell you, frankly. But this year, using the pretext of the China virus and the scam of mail-in ballots, Democrats attempted the most brazen and outrageous election theft — and there's never been anything like this — so, pure theft in American history. Everybody knows it, that election, our election was over at 10 o'clock in the evening. We're leading Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia by hundreds of thousands of votes. And then late in the evening or early in the morning, boom, these explosions of bullshit.
And all of a sudden, all of a sudden, it started to happen.
Don't forget when Romney got beat, Romney, hey, did you see his I wonder if he enjoyed his flight in last night, but when Romney got beaten, you know, he stands up like, you're more typical, 'well, I'd like to congratulate the victor.' The victor? Who is the victor, Mitt? I'd like to congratulate... They don't go and look at the facts. Now, I don't know. He got he got slaughtered. Probably, maybe, it was OK. Maybe it was...that's what happened. But we look at the facts and our election was so corrupt that in the history of this country, we've never seen anything like it.
You can go all the way back. You know, America is blessed with elections. All over the world, they talk about our elections. You know what the world says about us now. They said we don't have free and fair elections. And you know what else? We don't have a free and fair press.
Our media is not free. It's not fair. It suppresses thought. It suppresses speech. And it's become the enemy of the people. It's become the enemy of the people. It's the biggest problem we have in this country.
No third world countries would even attempt to do what we caught them doing. And you'll hear about that in just a few minutes. Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It's like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people.
And we're going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us, and if he doesn't, that will be a sad day for our country because you're sworn to uphold our Constitution.
Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy.
And after this, we're going to walk down and I'll be there with you. We're going to walk down. We're going to walk down anyone you want. But I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol.
And we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen-and-women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.
We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today, we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four year period. We've set it on a much straighter course, a much...and I thought, you know, four more years. I thought it would be easy. We created the greatest economy in history. We rebuilt our military. We get you the biggest tax cuts in history, right? We got you the biggest regulation cuts.
There's no president, whether it's four years, eight years or in one case, more, got anywhere near the regulation cuts. [It] used to take 20 years to get a highway approved. Now we're down to two. I want to get it down to one, but we're down to two.
And it may get rejected for environmental or safety reasons, but we got it down to safety. We created Space Force. Look at what we did.
Our military has been totally rebuilt. So we create Space Force, which by and of itself is a major achievement for an administration. And with us, it's one of so many different things. Right to try everybody know about, right to try. We did things that nobody ever thought possible. We took care of our vets, our vets. The VA now has the highest rating, ninety one percent, the highest rating that it's had from the beginning.
Ninety one percent approval rating. Always you watch the VA, it was on television every night, people living in a horrible, horrible manner. We got that done. We got accountability done. We got it so that now in the VA, you don't have to wait for four weeks, six weeks, eight weeks, four months to see a doctor. If you can't get a doctor, you go outside. You get the doctor, you have them taken care of, and we pay the doctor. And we've not only made life wonderful for so many people, we've saved tremendous amounts of money, far secondarily, but we've saved a lot of money and now we have the right to fire bad people in the VA. We had 9000 people that treated our veterans horribly. In primetime, they would not have treated our veterans badly, but they treated our veterans horribly and we have what's called the VA Accountability Act. And the accountability says, if we see somebody in there that doesn't treat our vets well or they steal, they rob, they do things badly, we say, Joe, you're fired. Get out of here. Before you couldn't do that. You couldn't do that before. So we've taken care of things. We've done things like nobody's ever thought possible.
And that's part of the reason that many people don't like us because we've done too much, but we've done it quickly. And we were going to sit home and watch a big victory and everybody had us down for a victory. It was going to be great. And now we're out here fighting. I said to somebody I was going to take a few days and relax after our big electoral victory. Ten o'clock it was over. But I was going to take a few days, and I can say this: Since our election, I believe — which was such a catastrophe when I watch and even these guys knew what happened, they know what happened. They're saying, wow, Pennsylvania is insurmountable. Wow. Wisconsin, look at the big leads we had, right — even though the press said we could lose Wisconsin by 17 points, even though the press said Ohio's going to be close, we set a record.
Florida is going to be close. We set a record. Texas is going to be close.
Texas is going to be close, we set a record and we set our record with Hispanic, with the black community, we set a record with everybody. Today we see a very important event, though, because right over there, right there, we see the event going to take place and I'm going to be watching because history is going to be made. We're going to see whether or not we have great and courageous leaders or whether or not we have leaders that should be ashamed of themselves throughout history, throughout eternity. They'll be ashamed. And you know what? If they do the wrong thing, we should never, ever forget that they did, never forget.
We should never, ever forget.
With only three of the seven states in question, we win the presidency of the United States. And by the way, it's much more important today than it was twenty four hours ago because, and don't...I spoke to David Perdue, what a great person, and Kelly Loeffler, two great people. But it was a setup and, you know, I said, we have no backline anymore. The only backline, the only line of demarcation, the only line that we have is the veto of the President of the United States.
So this is now what we're doing, a far more important election than it was two days ago.
I want to thank the more than one hundred and forty members of the House – those are warriors, they're over there working like you've never seen before. Studying, talking. Actually going all the way back, studying the roots of the Constitution because they know we have the right to send the bad vote that was illegally gotten, they gave these people bad things to vote for and they voted because what did they know? And then when they found out a few weeks later, again, it took them four years to devise this screed. And the only unhappy person in the United States, single most unhappy is Hillary Clinton, because she said, why didn't you do this for me four years ago?
Why didn't you do this for me four years ago? Change the votes, 10000 in Michigan.
You could have changed the whole thing, but she's not too happy, you notice you don't see her anymore. What happened? Where's Hillary? Where is she?
But I want to thank all of those congressmen-and-women. I also want to thank our 13 most courageous members of the US Senate, Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Ron Johnson, Senator Josh Hawley, Kelly Loeffler and Kelly Loeffler, I'll tell you, she has been, she's been so great, she's worked so hard, so let's give her and David a little special hand because it was rigged against him. Let's give her and David, Kelly Loeffler, David Perdue.
They fought a good race. They never had a shot. That equipment should never have been allowed to be used.
And I was telling these people, don't let them use this stuff. Marsha Blackburn, terrific person, Mike Braun, Indiana, Steve Daines, great guy, Bill Hagerty, John Kennedy, James Lankford, Cynthia Lummis, Tommy Tuberville, to the coach, and Roger Marshall, we want to thank them, Senators who have stepped up. We want to thank them.
I actually think, though, it takes, again, more courage not to step up, and I think a lot of those people are going to find that out and you better start looking at your leadership because your leadership has led you down the tubes.
You know, [they said] 'we don't want to give two thousand dollars to people.'
We want to give them six hundred dollars.' Oh, great. How does that play politically? Pretty good? and this has nothing to do with politics.
But how does it play politically? China destroyed these people, we didn't destroy. China destroyed them, totally destroyed them. 'We want to give them six hundred dollars.' And they just wouldn't change. I said give them two thousand dollars, we'll pay it back, will pay it back fast. You already owe twenty six trillion. Give them a couple of bucks, let them live.
Give them a couple of bucks and some of the people here disagree with me on that.
But I just say, look, you got to let people live. And how does that play, though? OK, number one, it's the right thing to do, but how does that play politically?
I think it's the primary reason, one of the primary reasons, the other was just pure cheating, that was the primary, super primary, reason. But you can't do that. Got use your head.
As you know, the media has constantly asserted the outrageous lie that there was no evidence of widespread fraud. You ever see these people? 'While there is no evidence of fraud'... Oh, really. I'm going to read you pages. I hope you don't get bored listening to it. Promise? Don't get bored listening to it. All those hundreds of thousands of people back there. Move them up, please. All these people, don't get bored, don't get angry at me because you're going to get bored because it's so much, the American people do not believe the corrupt fake news anymore. They have ruined their reputation. But, you know, it used to be that they'd argue with me, I'd fight. So I'd fight, they'd fight, I'd fight, they'd fight, bop, bop. You'd believe me, you'd believe them, somebody comes out, you know, they had their point of view. I had my point of view. But you'd have an argument. Now, what they do is they go silent. It's called suppression, and that's what happens in a communist country. That's what they do, they suppress. You don't fight with them anymore unless it's a bad story. They have a little bad story about me. They make it ten times worse and it's a major headline. But Hunter Biden, they don't talk about him. What happened to Hunter? Where is Hunter? Where is Hunter? They don't talk about him.
Now watch, all the sets will go off. Well, they can't do that because they get good ratings. The ratings are too good. Now, where's Hunter? You know, and how come Joe is allowed to give a billion dollars of money to get rid of the prosecutor in Ukraine? How does that happen? I'd ask you that question. How does that happen? Can you imagine if I said that? If I said that it would be a whole different ball game? And how come Hunter gets three and a half million dollars from the mayor of Moscow's wife? And gets, hundreds of thousands of dollars to sit on an energy board, even though he admits he has no knowledge of energy. And millions of dollars up front and how come they go into China and they leave with billions of dollars to manage? 'Have you managed money before?' 'No, I haven't.' 'Oh, that's good. Here's about three billion.' No, they don't talk about that. No, we have a corrupt media, they've gone silent, they've gone dead. I now realize how good it was if you go back 10 years, I realize how good, even though I didn't necessarily love them, I realized how good it was, it was like a cleansing motion, right? But we don't have that anymore. We don't have a fair media anymore. It's suppression. And you have to be very careful with that. And they've lost all credibility in this country.
We will not be intimidated into accepting the hoaxes and the lies that we've been forced to believe. Over the past several weeks we've amassed overwhelming evidence about a fake election. This is the presidential election. Last night was a little bit better because of the fact that we had a lot of eyes watching one specific state, but they cheated like hell anyway. You have one of the dumbest governors in the United States. And, you know, when I endorsed him — I didn't know this guy— at the request of David Perdue, he said, he's a friend of mine is running for governor. 'What's his name?' And you know, the rest. He was in fourth place. Fifth place, I don't know. He was way [down], he was doing poorly. I endorsed him. He went like a rocket ship and he won.
And then I had to beat Stacey Abrams with this guy, Brian Kemp. I had to beat Stacey Abrams and I had to beat Oprah. Used to be a friend of mine. You know, I was on her last show her last week. She picked the five outstanding people. I don't think she thinks that anymore. Once I ran for president, I didn't notice there were too many calls coming in from Oprah. Believe it or not, she used to like me, but I was one of the five outstanding people. And I had a campaign against Michelle Obama and Barack Hussein Obama against Stacy and I had Brian Kemp — he weighs one hundred and thirty pounds — he said he played offensive line and football. I'm trying to figure that out. I'm still trying to figure that out. He said the other night 'I was an offensive lineman.' I'm saying really, that must have been a very small team. But I look at that and I look at what's happened, and he turned out to be a disaster.
This stuff happens, you know. Look, I'm not happy with the Supreme Court. They love to rule against me. I picked three people.
I fought like hell for them, one in particular, I fought. They all said, sir, cut him loose, he's killing the senators, you know, very loyal senators. They're very loyal people. Sir, cut him loose. He's killing us, Sir. Cut him loose, Sir. I must have gotten half of the senators.
I said, no, I can't do that. It's unfair to him and it's unfair to the family. He didn't do anything wrong. They made up stories, they're all made up stories, he didn't do anything wrong. Cut him loose, Sir. I said, no, I won't do that. We got him through. And you know what, they couldn't give a damn, they couldn't give a damn. Let him rule the right way. But it almost seems that they're all going out of their way to hurt all of us and to hurt our country, to hurt our country.
You know, I read a story in one of the newspapers recently how I control the three Supreme Court justices.
I control them. They're puppets. I read it about Bill Barr that he's my personal attorney, that he'll do anything for me. And I said, you know, it really is genius because what they do is that...and it makes it really impossible for them to ever give you a victory because all of a sudden, Bill Barr changed, if you hadn't noticed. I like Bill Barr, but he changed because he didn't want to be considered my personal attorney. And the Supreme Court, they rule against me so much. You know why? Because the story is — I haven't spoken to any of them, any since virtually they got in — but the story is that they're my puppet, right?
That they're puppets. And now the only way they can get out of that, because they hate that it's not good on the social circuit, that the only way they get out is to rule against Trump.
So let's rule against Trump and they do that. So I want to congratulate them. But it shows you the media's genius. In fact, probably if I was the media, I'd do it the same way. I hate to say it, but we got to get them straightened out. Today for the sake of our democracy, for the sake of our Constitution and for the sake of our children, we lay out the case for the entire world to hear.
Do you want to hear it? In every single swing state, local officials, state officials, almost all Democrats made illegal and unconstitutional changes to election procedures without the mandated approvals by the state legislatures. That these changes pave the way for fraud on a scale never seen before, and I think we can go a long way outside of our country when I say that.
So just in a nutshell, you can't make a change on voting for a federal election unless the state legislature approves it. No judge can do it. Nobody can do it. Only a legislature. So as an example, in Pennsylvania or whatever, you have a Republican legislature, you have a Democrat mayor, and you have a lot of Democrats all over the place. They go to the legislature. The legislature laughs at them, says we're not going to do that. They say thank you very much. And they go and make the changes themselves. They do it anyway. And that's totally illegal. That's totally illegal. You can't do that.
In Pennsylvania, the Democrat secretary of state and the Democrat state Supreme Court justices illegally abolished the signature verification requirements just 11 days prior to the election. So think of what they did. No longer is there signature verification. Oh, that's OK. We want voter ID, by the way, but no longer is there signature verification. 11 days before the election, they say we don't want it. You know why they don't want it? Because they want to cheat. That's the only reason. Who would even think of that? We don't want to verify a signature? There were over two hundred and five thousand more ballots counted in Pennsylvania. Now, think of this. You had two hundred and five thousand more ballots, then you had voters. That means you had two...where did they come from? You know, where they came from, somebody's imagination, whatever they needed. So in Pennsylvania, you had two hundred and five thousand more votes than you had voters. And the number is actually much greater than that now. That was as of a week ago and this is a mathematical impossibility unless you want to say it's a total fraud. So Pennsylvania was defrauded. Over 8000 ballots in Pennsylvania were cast by people whose names and dates of birth match individuals who died in 2020 and prior to the election. Think of that. Dead people. Lots of dead people, thousands and some dead people actually requested an application. That bothers me even more. Not only are they voting, they want an application to vote. One of them was twenty nine years ago died. It's incredible. Over 14000 ballots were cast by out-of-state voters, so these are voters that don't live in the state. And by the way, these numbers are what they call outcome determinative, meaning these numbers far surpass, I lost by a little bit. These numbers are massive, massive. More than 10000 votes in Pennsylvania were illegally counted even though they were received after Election Day.
In other words, they were received after Election Day. Let's count them anyway. And what they did in many cases is they did fraud. They took the date and they moved it back so that it no longer is after Election Day.
And more than 60000 ballots in Pennsylvania were reported received back. They got back before they were ever supposedly mailed out. In other words, you got the ballot back before you mailed it.
Which is also logically and logistically impossible, right? Think of that one.
You got the ballot back. Let's send the ballots so they've already been so. But we got the ballot back before they were sent. I don't think that's too good, right. Twenty five thousand ballots in Pennsylvania were requested by nursing home residents, all in a single giant batch, not legal, indicating an enormous illegal ballot harvesting operation. You're allowed to do. It's against the law. The day before the election, the state of Pennsylvania reported the number of absentee ballots that had been set out. Yet this number was suddenly and drastically increased by four hundred thousand people.
It was increased. Nobody knows where it came from by four hundred thousand ballots, one day after the election. It remains totally unexplained. They said, well, we can't figure that. Now, that's many, many times what it would take to overthrow the state. Just that what element.
Four hundred thousand ballots appeared from nowhere right after the election. By the way, Pennsylvania has now seen all of this. They didn't know because it was so quick.
They had a vote. They voted, but now they see all this stuff. It's all come to light. Doesn't happen that fast.
And they want to recertify their votes. They want to recertify. But the only way that can happen is if Mike Pence agrees to send it back.
Mike Pence has to agree to send it back.
And many people in Congress want to send it back. And think of what you're doing. Let's say you don't do it, somebody says, well, we have to obey the Constitution and you are because you're protecting our country and you're protecting the Constitution. So you are. But think of what happens. Let's say they're stiffs and they're stupid people and they say, well, we really have no choice.
Even though Pennsylvania and other states want to redo their votes, they want to see the numbers, they already have the numbers, go very quickly and they want to redo. Their legislature, because many of these votes were taken, as I said, because it wasn't approved by the legislature, you know. That in itself is like...and then you have the scam and that's all of the things that we're talking about. But think of this. If you don't do that, that means you will have a president of the United States for four years with his wonderful son. You will have a president who lost all of these states or you will have a president, to put it another way, who was voted on by a bunch of stupid people who lost all of these states. You will have an illegitimate president, that's what you'll have, and we can't let that happen.
These are the facts that you won't hear from the fake news media. It's all part of the suppression effort. They don't want to talk about it. They don't want to talk about it. In fact, when I started talking about that, I guarantee you a lot of the television sets and a lot of those cameras went off and that's a lot of cameras back there, but a lot of them went off. But these are the things you don't hear about. You don't hear what you just heard. I'm going to go over a few more states, but you don't hear it by the people who want to deceive you and demoralize you and control you — big tech media — just like the suppression polls that said we're going to lose Wisconsin by 17 points.
Well, we won Wisconsin. They don't have it that way because I lost by just a little sliver. But they had me down the day before — Washington Post ABC poll — down 17 points. I called up a real pollster. I said, what is that? Sir, that's called a suppression poll. I think you're going to win Wisconsin, Sir. I said, but what are they? Make it four or five points because then people vote. But when you're down 17, they say, hey, I'm not going to waste my time. I love the president, but there's no way.
Despite that, despite that, we won Wisconsin. You'll see. But that's called suppression, because a lot of people, when they see that, it's very interesting. This pollster said, Sir, if you're down three, four or five people vote. When you go down 17, they say, let's save, let's go and have dinner and let's watch the presidential defeat tonight on television, darling. And just like the radical left tries to blacklist you on social media, every time I put out a tweet, even if it's totally correct, totally correct, I get a flag. I get a flag and they also don't let you get out. You know, on Twitter, it's very hard to come on to my account. It's very hard to get out a message. They don't let the message get out nearly like they should. But I've had many people say, I can't get on your Twitter. I don't care about Twitter. Twitter's bad news. They're all bad news. But you know what? If you want to get out a message and if you want to go through a big tech social media, they are really, if you're a conservative, if you're a Republican, if you have a big voice, I guess they call it a shadowban, right? Shadowban, they shadowban you.
And it should be illegal. I've been telling these Republicans, get rid of Section 230. And for some reason, Mitch and the group, they don't want to put it in there and they don't realize that that's going to be the end of the Republican Party as we know it, but it's never going to be the end of us, never. Let them get out.
Let the weak ones get out. This is a time for strength. They also want to indoctrinate your children in school by teaching them things that aren't so, they want to indoctrinate your children. It's all part of the comprehensive assault on our democracy. And the American people are finally standing up and saying, no. This crowd is again a testament to it. I did no advertising. I did nothing. You do have some groups that are big supporters. I want to thank that, Amy and everybody. We have some incredible supporters. Incredible. But we didn't do anything. This just happened. Two months ago, we had a massive crowd come down to Washington. I said, what are they there for? Sir, they're there for you. We have nothing to do with it. These groups they're forming all over the United States. And we got to remember, in a year from now, you're going to start working on Congress and we got to get rid of the weak congresspeople, the ones that aren't any good, the Liz Cheney's of the world. We got to get rid of them.
We got to get rid.
You know, she never wants a soldier brought home. Twenty, I brought a lot of our soldiers home, I don't know, somewhat like it. They're in countries that nobody even knows the name. Nobody knows where they are. They're dying. They're great, but they're dying. They're losing their arms, their legs, their face. I brought them back home, largely back home. Afghanistan, Iraq. Remember I used to say in the old days, don't go in Iraq, but if you go in, keep the oil. We didn't keep the oil. So stupid, so stupid. These people. And Iraq has billions and billions of dollars now in the bank.
And what did we do? We got nothing. We never get...but we do actually. We kept the oil here. We did good. We got rid of the ISIS caliphate. We got rid of plenty of different things that everybody knows and the rebuilding of our military in three years.
People said it couldn't be done and it was all made in the USA, all made in the USA. Best equipment in the world. In Wisconsin, corrupt Democrat-run cities deployed more than five hundred illegal, unmanned, unsecured drop boxes, which collected a minimum of ninety one thousand unlawful votes, it was razor-thin the loss. One thing alone is much more than we would need. But there are many things.
They have these lock boxes and you know, that pick them up and they disappear for two days. People would say, where's that box that disappeared? Nobody even knew where the hell it was. In addition, over one hundred and seventy thousand absentee votes were counted in Wisconsin without a valid absentee ballot application. So they had a vote, but they had no application. And that's illegal in Wisconsin, meaning those votes were blatantly done in opposition to state law. And they came one hundred percent from Democrat areas such as Milwaukee, and Madison, one hundred percent. In Madison, seventeen thousand votes were deposited in so-called human drop boxes, you know what that is, right, where operatives stuffed thousands of unsecured ballots into duffel bags on park benches across the city in complete defiance of cease and desist letters from state legislature.
Your state legislature said, don't do it. They're the only ones that can approve it.
They gave tens of thousands of votes. They came in and duffel bags. Where the hell did they come from? According to eyewitness testimony, Postal Service workers in Wisconsin were also instructed to illegally backdate approximately 100000 ballots. The margin of difference in Wisconsin was less than 20 thousand votes, each one of these things alone wins us the state, great state. We love the state. We won the state. In Georgia, your secretary of state, who I can't believe this guy is a Republican, he loves recording telephone conversations, you know, that was a...I thought it was a great conversation personally, so did a lot of others, people loved that conversation because it says what's going on. These people are crooked. They're one hundred percent, in my opinion, one of the most corrupt, between your governor and your secretary of state, and now you have it again last night. Just take a look at what happened. What a mess. And the Democrat Party operatives entered into an illegal and unconstitutional settlement agreement that drastically weakened signature verification and other election security procedures.
Stacey Abrams. She took them to lunch. And I beat her two years ago with a bad candidate, Brian Kemp. But they took...the Democrats, took the Republicans to lunch because the secretary of state had no clue what the hell was happening, unless he did have a clue.
That's interesting. Maybe he was with the other side, but we've been trying to get verifications of signatures in Fulton County.
They won't let us do it. The only reason they won't is because we'll find things in the hundreds of thousands. Why wouldn't they let us verify signatures in Fulton County, which is known for being very corrupt? They won't do it. They go to some other county where you would live. I said that's not the problem. The problem is Fulton County, home of Stacey Abrams.
She did a good job. I congratulate her. But it was done in such a way that we can't let this stuff happen. We won't have a country if it happens.
As a result, Georgia's absentee ballot rejection rate was more than 10 times lower than previous levels because the criteria was so off. Forty eight counties in Georgia with thousands and thousands of votes, rejected zero ballots. There wasn't one ballot. In other words, in a year in which more mail-in ballots were sent than ever before and more people were voting by mail for the first time, the rejection rate was drastically lower than it had ever been before. The only way this can be explained is if tens of thousands of illegitimate votes were added to the tally.
That's the only way you could explain it. By the way, you're talking about tens of thousands.
If Georgia had merely rejected the same number of unlawful ballots as in other years, they should have been approximately forty five thousand ballots rejected, far more than what we needed to win just over 11000.
They should find those votes. They should absolutely find that. Just over 11000 votes, that's all we need. They defrauded us out of a win in Georgia and we're not going to forget it.
There's only one reason the Democrats could possibly want to eliminate signature matching oppose voter I.D. and stop citizenship confirmation. Are you a citizen? You're not allowed to ask that question. Because they want to steal the election. The radical left knows exactly what they're doing, they're ruthless, and it's time that somebody did something about it.
And Mike Pence, I hope you're going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. And if you're not, I'm going to be very disappointed in you, I will tell you right now, I'm not hearing good stories.
In Fulton County, Republican poll watchers rejected, in some cases physically, from the room under the false pretense of a pipe burst — water main burst, everybody leave — which we now know was a total lie. Then election officials pulled boxes, Democrats and suitcases of ballots out from under a table — you all saw it on television, totally fraudulent — and illegally scanned them for nearly two hours, totally unsupervised, tens of thousands of votes. This act coincided with a mysterious vote dump of up to one hundred thousand votes for Joe Biden, almost none for Trump. Oh, that sounds fair. That was at 1:34 a.m. The Georgia secretary of state and pathetic governor of Georgia average...although he says I'm a great president, you know, I sort of maybe have to change, he said the other day. Yes, I do. I disagree with the president, but he's been a great president. Oh, good, thanks, thank you very much. Because of him and others, yeah, Brian, can't vote him the hell out of office, please. Well, his rates are so low, you know, his approval rating now, I think it just reached a record low. They've rejected five separate appeals for an independent and comprehensive audit of signatures in Fulton County. Even without an audit, the number of fraudulent ballots that we've identified across the state is staggering. Over ten thousand three hundred ballots in Georgia were cast by individuals whose names and dates of birth matched Georgia residents who died in 2020 and prior to the election. More than two thousand five hundred ballots were cast by individuals whose names and dates of birth match incarcerated felons in Georgia prison, people who are not allowed to vote. More than four thousand five hundred illegal ballots were cast by individuals who do not appear on the state's own voter rolls. Over eighteen thousand illegal ballots were cast by individuals who registered to vote using an address listed as vacant, according to the Postal Service. At least eighty eight thousand ballots in Georgia were cast by people whose registrations were illegally backdated. Sixty six thousand votes, each one of these is far more than we need.
Sixty six thousand votes in Georgia were cast by individuals under the legal voting age, and at least 15000 thousand ballots were cast by individuals who moved out of the state prior to the November 3rd election. They say they moved right back. They move right back. Oh, they moved out. They moved right back. OK, they missed Georgia's that much. I do. I love Georgia, but it's a corrupt system.
Despite all of this, the margin in Georgia is only eleven thousand seven hundred and seventy nine votes. Each and every one of these issues is enough to give us a victory in Georgia, a big, beautiful victory. Make no mistake, this election was stolen from you, from me and from the country, and not a single swing state has conducted a comprehensive audit to remove the illegal ballots. This should absolutely occur in every single contested state before the election is certified. In the state of Arizona, over thirty six thousand ballots were illegally cast by non-citizens. 2000 ballots were returned with no address. More than twenty two thousand ballots were returned before they were ever supposedly mailed out. They returned, but we haven't mailed them yet. Eleven thousand six hundred more ballots and votes were counted more than there were actual voters. You see that? So you have more votes again than you have voters. One hundred and fifty thousand people registered in Maricopa County after the registration deadline. One hundred and three thousand ballots in the county were sent for electronic adjudication with no Republican observers. In Clark County, Nevada, the accuracy settings on signature verification machines were purposely lowered before they were used to count over one hundred and thirty thousand ballots. If you sign your name as Santa Claus, it would go through.
There were also more than forty two thousand double votes in Nevada, over one hundred and fifty thousand people were hurt so badly by what took place, and fifteen hundred ballots were cast by individuals whose names and dates of birth match Nevada residents who died in 2020 prior to the November 3rd election. More than a thousand votes were cast by individuals who had no address and probably didn't live there. The margin in Nevada is down at a very low number. Any of these things would have taken care of the situation. We would have won Nevada also. Every one of these were going over. We win. In Michigan quickly, the secretary of state, a real great one, flooded the state with unsolicited mail-in ballot applications sent to every person on the rolls in direct violation of state law. More than seventeen thousand Michigan ballots were cast by individuals whose names and dates of birth match people who were deceased.
In Wayne County, that's a great one, that's Detroit, one hundred and seventy four thousand ballots were counted without being tied to an actual registered voter. Nobody knows where they came from. Also in Wayne County, poll watchers observed canvassers re-scanning batches of ballots over and over again, up to three or four or five times. In Detroit, turnout was 139 percent of registered voters. Think of that. So you had 139 percent of the people in Detroit voting. This is in Michigan. Detroit, Michigan. A career employee of the Detroit, city of Detroit, testified under penalty of perjury that she witnessed city workers coaching voters to vote straight Democrat while accompanying them to watch who they voted for. When a Republican came in, they wouldn't talk to them. The same worker was instructed not to ask for any voter I.D. and not to attempt to validate any signatures if they were Democrats. She also [was] told to illegally and was told [to] backdate ballots received after the deadline and reports that thousands and thousands of ballots were improperly backdated. That's Michigan. Four witnesses have testified under penalty of perjury that after officials in Detroit announced the last votes had been counted, tens of thousands of additional ballots arrived without required envelopes. Every single one was for a Democrat. I got no votes. At 6:31 a.m. in the early morning hours after voting had ended, Michigan suddenly reported one hundred and forty seven thousand votes. An astounding 94 percent went to Joe Biden, who campaigned brilliantly from his basement. Only a couple of percentage points went to Trump. Such gigantic and one-sided vote dumps were only observed in a few swing states and they were observed in the states where it was necessary. You know, it's interesting, President Obama beat Biden in every state other than the swing states where Biden killed them, but the swing states were the ones that mattered. They're always just enough to push Joe Biden barely into the lead. We were ahead by a lot and within a number of hours we were losing by a little.
In addition, there is the highly troubling matter of Dominion voting systems. In one Michigan county alone, 6000 votes were switched from Trump to Biden, and the same systems are used in the majority of states in our country. Senator William Ligon, a great gentleman, chairman of Georgia's Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, Senator Ligon, highly respected on elections, has written a letter describing his concerns with Dominion in Georgia. He wrote, and I quote, 'The Dominion voting machines employed in Fulton County had an astronomical and astounding 93.67 percent error rate' — it's only wrong 93 percent of the time — 'in the scanning of ballots requiring a review panel to adjudicate or determine the voter's interest in over one hundred and six thousand ballots out of a total of one hundred and thirty thousand.' Think of it: you go in and you vote and then they tell people who you're supposed to be voting for, they make up whatever they want. Nobody's ever even heard. They adjudicate your vote. They say, well, we don't think Trump wants to vote for Trump. We think he wants to vote for Biden. Put it down for Biden. The national average for such an error rate is far less than one percent, and yet you're at 93 percent. 'The source of this astronomical error rate must be identified to determine if these machines were set up or destroyed to allow for a third party to disregard the actual ballot cast by the registered voter.' The letter continues:
'There is clear evidence that tens of thousands of votes were switched from President Trump to former Vice President Biden in several counties in Georgia. For example, in Bibb County, President Trump was reported to have twenty nine thousand three hundred ninety one votes at 9:11 p.m. Eastern Time, while simultaneously Vice President Joe Biden was reported to have seventeen thousand two thirteen. Minutes later' — just minutes — 'at the next update, these vote numbers switched with President Trump going way down to seventeen thousand and Biden going way up to twenty nine thousand three ninety one.' — and that was very quick — 'a twelve thousand vote switch, all in Mr Biden's favor.'
So, I mean, I could go on and on about this fraud that took place in every state. And all of these legislatures want this back.
I don't want to do it to you because I love you and it's freezing out here. But I could just go on forever. I can tell you this. So when you hear, when you hear, while there is no evidence to prove any wrongdoing, this is the most fraudulent thing anybody said. This is a criminal enterprise. This is a criminal enterprise, and the press will say, and I'm sure they won't put any of that on that because that's not good. And, did you ever see, 'while there is no evidence to back President Trump's assertion' – I could go on for another hour reading this stuff to you and telling you about it. There's never been anything like it. Think about it. Detroit had more votes than it had voters. Pennsylvania had two hundred and five thousand more votes than it had more. But you don't have to go any...between that, I think that's almost better than dead people, if you think, right? More votes than they had voters, and many other states also. It's a disgrace that the United States of America, tens of millions of people, are allowed to go vote without so much as even showing identification. In no state is there any question or effort made to verify the identity, citizenship, residency or eligibility of the votes cast.
The Republicans have to get tougher. You're not going to have a Republican Party if you don't get tougher.
They want to play so straight. They want to play so 'Sir, yes, the United States the Constitution doesn't allow me to send them back to the States.' Well, I say yes, it does, because the Constitution says you have to protect our country and you have to protect our Constitution and you can't vote on fraud.
And fraud breaks up everything, doesn't it?
When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules. So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do, and I hope he does listen to the rhinos and the stupid people that he's listening to. It is also widely understood that the voter rolls are crammed full of non-citizens, felons and people who have moved out of state and individuals who are otherwise ineligible to vote. Yet Democrats oppose every effort to clean up their voter rolls. They don't want to clean them up. They're loaded. And how many people here know other people that when the hundreds of thousands and then millions of ballots got sent out, got three, four, five, six, and I heard one who got seven ballots? And then they say, 'you didn't quite make it, Sir.'
Ah, we won in a landslide. This was a landslide.
They said it's not American to challenge the election. This is the most corrupt election in the history maybe of the world. You know, you could go third world countries, but I don't think they had hundreds of thousands of votes, and they don't have voters for them, I mean, no matter where you go, nobody would think this, in fact it's so egregious, it's so bad that a lot of people don't even believe it. It's so crazy that people don't even believe it. 'It can't be true.' So they don't believe it. This is not just a matter of domestic politics. This is a matter of national security. So today, in addition to challenging the certification of the election, I'm calling on Congress and the state legislatures to quickly pass sweeping election reforms and you better do it before we have no country left.
Today is not the end. It's just the beginning. With your help over the last four years, we built the greatest political movement in the history of our country and nobody even challenges that. I say that over and over. And I never get challenged by the fake news, and they challenge almost everything we say. But our fight against the big donors, big media, big tech and others is just getting started. This is the greatest in history. There's never been a movement like that. You look back there all the way to the Washington Monument, it's hard to believe. We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again, can never be allowed to happen again. But we're going forward. We'll take care of going forward. We got to take care of going back. Don't let them talk, 'OK, well, we promise.' I've had a lot of people, 'Sir, you're at 96 percent for four years.'
I said I'm not interested right now. I'm interested in right there. With your help, we will finally pass powerful requirements for voter ID. You need an ID to cash a check. You need an ID to go to a bank, to buy alcohol, to drive a car. Every person should need to show an ID in order to cast your most important thing, a vote.
We will also require proof of American citizenship in order to vote in American elections.
We just had a good victory in court on that one, actually. We will ban ballot harvesting and prohibit the use of unsecured drop boxes to commit rampant fraud. These drop boxes are fraudulent. They disappear and then all of a sudden they show up, it's fraudulent. We will stop the practice of universal unsolicited mail-in balloting. We will clean up the voter rolls that ensure that every single person who cast a vote is a citizen of our country, a resident of the state in which they vote and their vote is cast in a lawful and honest manner. We will restore the vital civic tradition of in-person voting on Election Day so that voters can be fully informed when they make their choice.
We will finally hold big tech accountable. And if these people had courage and guts, they would get rid of Section 230, something that no other company, no other person in America, in the world, has.
All of these tech monopolies are going to abuse their power and interfere in our elections, and it has to be stopped and the Republicans have to get a lot tougher and so should the Democrats. They should be regulated, investigated, and brought to justice under the fullest extent of the law.
They're totally breaking the law.
Together, we will drain the Washington swamp and we will clean up the corruption in our nation's capital. We have done a big job on it. But you think it's easy. It's a dirty business. It's a dirty business. You have a lot of bad people out there. Despite everything we've been through looking out all over this country and seeing fantastic crowds, although this I think is our all-time record, I think you have two hundred and fifty thousand people, two hundred and fifty thousand, looking out at all the amazing patriots here today, I have never been more confident in our nation's future.
Well, I have to say, we have to be a little bit careful, that's a nice statement, but we have to be a little careful with that statement.
If we allow this group of people to illegally take over our country, because it's illegal when the votes are illegal, when the way they got there is illegal, when the states that vote are given false and fraudulent information.
We are the greatest country on earth, and we are headed and we're headed in the right direction, you know, the wall is built, we're doing record numbers at the wall now, they want to take down the wall, 'let's let everyone flow in. Let's let everybody flow in.'
We did a great job in the wall. Remember the wall? They said it could never be done, one of the largest infrastructure projects we've ever had in this country. And it's had a tremendous impact. We've got rid of catch and release. We got rid of all of the stuff that we had to live with.
But now the caravan's — they think Biden's getting in — the caravans of forming again. They want to come in again and rip off our country. Can't let it happen. As this enormous crowd shows, we have truth and justice on our side. We have a deep and enduring love for America in our hearts. We love our country. We have overwhelming pride in this great country and we have a deep in our souls. Together, we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Our brightest days are before us, our greatest achievements still await. I think one of our great achievements will be election security, because nobody until I came along had any idea how corrupt our elections were.
And again, most people would stand there at nine o'clock in the evening and say, I want to thank you very much. And they go off to some other life.
But I said something's wrong here. Something's really wrong. Can't have happened. And we fight. We fight like hell.
And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun.
My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children and for our beloved country, and I say this despite all that's happened, the best is yet to come.
So we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we're going to the Capitol and we're going to try and give — the Democrats are hopeless, they're never voting for anything. Not even one vote — but we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help, we're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all.
God bless you. And God bless America. Thank you all for being here. This is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Twitter ramps up censorship and bans engagement with ‘election fraud’ tweets, claiming ‘risk of violence’
LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) -- Twitter ramped up censorship restrictions today to prohibit people from liking, retweeting, or replying to select tweets following the break-in at the U.S. Capitol.
Twitter is now flagging select tweets, including tweets by President Donald Trump, with the message, “This claim about election fraud is disputed, and this Tweet can’t be replied to, Retweeted, or liked due to a risk of violence.”
The incredible irony of their censorship is that they’ve slapped this label onto a video message by Trump in which he calls for peace, telling protestors, “You have to go home now. We have to have peace.”
TwitterSafety issued the following statement:
“In regard to the ongoing situation in Washington, D.C., we are working proactively to protect the health of the public conversation occurring on the service and will take action on any content that violates the Twitter Rules.
Threats of and calls to violence are against the Twitter Rules, and we are enforcing our policies accordingly.
We are also exploring other escalated enforcement actions and will keep the public updated with any significant developments.”
Trump asks Capitol Hill protesters to ‘go home in peace,’ Twitter flags his message as ‘risk of violence’
LifeSiteNews is facing increasing censorship. Click HERE to sign up to receive emails when we add to our video library.
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The President of the United States had a message Wednesday afternoon for the protesters on Capitol Hill: go home.
After extraordinary scenes of protesters storming the Capitol building were beamed around the world, Donald Trump made a short video that he published on Twitter.
“I know your pain; I know your hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side,” the President said.
“But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to have our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt.”
Trump then stated that the election had been fraudulent and that this “tough period of time” is unprecedented. He seemed to suggest that the protests were benefiting those he believes have stolen the election.
“It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us: from me, from you, from our country," he said.
“This was a fraudulent election, but we cannot play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace.”
The President then repeated his instructions to the demonstrators to go home.
“So go home. We love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You’ve seen the ways others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home and go home in peace."
Twitter marked the President’s tweet with the caption “This claim of election fraud is disputed, and this Tweet can’t be replied to, Retweeted, or liked due to a risk of violence.”
However, within four minutes of being published, it was retweeted by EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo.
Protesters managed to climb the steps of the Capitol building this afternoon during the joint session of Congress in which challenges to the electoral college’s certification of the 2020 presidential election were being heard. Capitol police did not prevent a group of protesters from entering the building, and video footage shows them walking peacefully, if noisily, through the iconic National Statuary Hall.
A recess was called in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and legislators were either removed from the building or asked to “shelter in place” in their offices.
Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser announced a 6 p.m. curfew.
BREAKING: VP Pence will not reject contested electors on ‘unilateral authority’
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Vice President Mike Pence has decided not to reject contested electors on “unilateral authority” during today’s electoral vote certification, according to his letter published on Twitter earlier today.
“Some believe that as Vice President, I should be able to accept or reject electoral votes unilaterally,” the letter reads, adding that Pence doesn’t consider that “view” to be “correct.”
“I do not believe that the Founders of our country intended to invest the Vice President with unilateral authority to decide which electoral votes should be counted during the Joint Session of Congress, and no Vice President in American history has ever asserted such authority,” he said.
Some constitutional experts, however, have argued that multiple vice presidents, including Thomas Jefferson, Richard Nixon, and Al Gore, acted unilaterally during previous electoral certifications. As President of the Senate, Pence “can do his duty under the constitution … he can follow historical precedent, he can follow the language of the Constitution,” former Texas lawmaker Rick Green contended.
“It is my considered judgment that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not,” Pence said.
Nevertheless, “I welcome the efforts of Senate and House members who have stepped forward to use their authority under the law to raise objection and present evidence,” his letter continues.
“Those who suggest that raising objections under the Electoral Count Act is improper or undemocratic ignore more than 130 years of history, and fail to acknowledge that Democrats raised objections in Congress each of the last three times that a Republican candidate for President prevailed,” it acknowledges.
President Trump slammed Pence on Twitter over the vice president’s decision, saying that Pence “didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and Constitution.”
He added that Pence refused to allow “[s]tates a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify.”
Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 6, 2021
State lawmakers from across contested swing states had petitioned for a ten-to-twelve-day halt of the vote certification, to allow state legislatures time to investigate allegations of illegality and recertify electors.
“These elected officials are not asking Mike Pence to overturn the election results, and they’re certainly not trying to subvert our democracy,” said former Kansas attorney general Phill Kline. “Rather, they’re simply requesting that they be allowed to perform the role required of them by the Constitution — an opportunity that in some cases has been actively denied by their own governors.”
Portuguese mother, 41, dies two days after taking Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine
PORTO, Portugal, January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A Portuguese health care worker and mother-of-two died two days after receiving the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
Sonia Acevedo, 41, was inflicted with “sudden death” on New Year’s Day, following her vaccination which happened on December 30th. An autopsy is expected very soon, the Daily Mail reports.
Acevedo, who worked in pediatrics at the Portuguese Institute of Oncology in Porto, did not experience any immediate side-effects to the vaccine, beyond the “normal” soreness in the area where she received the shot.
Her father, Abilio Acevedo, said she was quite healthy, and “hadn’t had any health problems.”
“She had the Covid-19 vaccine but she didn’t have any symptoms,” he said. “I don't know what happened. I just want answers … I want to know what led to my daughter’s death.”
Ms. Acevedo’s employer, for whom she had worked the past ten years, confirmed she had been vaccinated on December 30 and stated they had not been notified of any “undesirable effect” to the shot in her case. They also expressed their “sincere regret to family and friends in the certainty that this loss is also felt here.”
Her employer added, “The explanation of the cause of death will follow the usual procedures in these circumstances.”
The death of Ms. Acevedo comes in the wake of many concerns regarding these vaccines, which have been rushed through the process of development, testing, approval and now distribution, with a new “messenger RNA” technology, no industry-standard animal trials, nor any sufficient studies on long-term effects.
Indeed, in early December, a former vice president and Chief Scientist at Pfizer, Dr. Michael Yeadon, petitioned for the halting of all testing of coronavirus vaccine candidates in Europe due to the significant safety concerns of a growing number of renowned scientists.
These concerns included, “allergic” and “potentially fatal reactions,” risks that these vaccines may cause infertility in women, result in an increased vulnerability to the virus, and present unacceptable dangers of long-term effects due to a lack of proper testing.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also drew up a document this fall listing the possible side-effects from a COVID-19 vaccine, including strokes, encephalitis, auto-immune disease, birth defects, Kawasaki disease and death.
LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page. View it here.
UPDATED: Protestors enter US Capitol amid Electoral College vote debate
January 6, 2020, Washington, D.C., (LifeSiteNews) – The United States capitol building was put into lockdown due to protestors entering the facility Wednesday.
Members of Congress were reportedly evacuated from the premises. There were no reports that lawmakers were harmed or held hostage.
One young woman, Ashli Babbit, was shot, apparently by Capitol Hill police, and has since died. Video footage that aired on C-SPAN this week shows what looked to be fire extinguisers being used by some of the protestors.
The protestors breached the Capitol as the House and Senate were debating the counting of the Electoral College votes from the State of Arizona. The count was delayed until 8:00pm EST.
While it’s unclear who exactly the protestors were, it appears they came from the Save America Rally held earlier in the day just south of the White House where President Trump delivered a speech about the election. The protestors flocked to the United States Capitol building following the march. Barricades were removed and skirmishes with police ensued. The large number of protestors seemed to overwhelm capitol police, though some video evidence has emerged that suggests the metal fences were removed by the police themselves. Some conservatives have claimed that Antifa infiltrated the march and broke into the capitol in an effort to blame the president for encouraging an insurrection.
Joe Biden issued a statement Wednesday calling on President Trump to address the country and to demand the “seige” come to an end. Trump published a video message released on Twitter calling for protestors to “go home” that was later removed by the platform, which deemed it to be inciting violence. As a result, the president has been locked out of Twitter for 12 hours.
This is a developing situation. Updates will be provided as they become available.
BREAKING: Trump: ‘If Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election’
Challenge to the Electoral College vote needs YOUR help! Contact your U.S. Rep and Senator today!
WASHNIGTON, D.C., January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – “If Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election,” President Trump told supporters at the March to Save America in Washington, D.C., this afternoon.
“States want to revote, the states got defrauded, they were given false information, they voted on it. Now, they want to recertify, they want it back,” Trump said. “All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify.”
Pence will preside over the congressional certification the Electoral College results from the 2020 presidential election this afternoon. “I just spoke to Mike,” the president revealed, “I said, ‘That doesn’t take courage, what takes courage is to do nothing.’”
Three hundred Republican lawmakers from battleground states joined President Trump over the weekend for a private briefing to review evidence of fraud and illegality in the 2020 election. Got Freedom, the 501(c)(4) group that hosted the meeting, said that it was organized at the lawmakers’ request.
Got Freedom also arranged a letter campaign following the briefing that has circulated among state legislators, urging Pence, as the presiding officer of today’s vote, to pause proceedings to allow the legislators to vote on their states’ electors.
Over 110 state representatives and senators have signed petitions asking Pence for more time, and additional signatures may have been delivered to the vice president this morning.
Various legal experts, including Phill Kline, former attorney general of Kansas, have stressed in recent days that Pence has constitutional authority to halt certification and allow states to conduct investigation. Former Texas legislator Rick Green told LifeSiteNews that Pence has power to “set up the rules” for the congressional joint session.
“The states that are in question could still meet and name their slate of electors and should do that. They could literally do that tomorrow,” Green said.
If Pence declines to take up the approach outlined in the letters, he still could refuse to count contested swing state electors. Republicans in Congress cannot put together the votes needed to reject electors themselves, as the Democrats have a majority in the House of Representatives.
If that happens, “then we’re stuck with a president who lost the election by a lot, and we have to live with that for four more years,” President Trump said.
“We’re just not gonna let that happen,” he declared.
Tucker Carlson vindicates Steven Mosher’s view that COVID-19 came from Chinese lab
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Fox News host Tucker Carlson said Steven Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute (PRI) and LifeSiteNews columnist, was “vindicated” for his view expressed last February that the novel coronavirus originated from a virology lab in Wuhan, China. For almost a year, Mosher’s view had been characterized as a “conspiracy theory” by many observers.
Classifying this development as one of the “many so-called ‘conspiracy theories’ [that] have turned out to be completely true” in the last four years, Carlson observed that in 2020, one would be called a “science denier” unless they “agreed vehemently, on faith, that the coronavirus came from a bat, or something called a pangolin, that was sold in a wet market in Wuhan.”
Not knowing in February if this assertion was true or not, Carlson interviewed Mosher, who stated at the time, “I think [the virus] escaped from the lab.” He continued to explain, “Wuhan is the only level 4 laboratory in all of China. So, that’s where you would put a dangerous pathogen. Whether you were genetically engineering it to be a weapon or not, that’s where you would be experimenting on it. So, it makes sense that the epicenter of the epidemic, the lab there, would be the source of that virus.”
Citing a recently published “remarkable piece” by Nicholson Baker in New York Magazine, where neither the author nor publication can rightly be considered conservative, Carlson states “it looks like [Mosher] was probably right.” Following even “a year’s-worth of research, talking to epidemiologists, virologists all over the world, Baker concludes that the most likely explanation for the emergence of this virus is that it escaped from that lab in Wuhan. It turns out that scientists around the world agree with him, they just didn’t want to say so. “
Carlson added that the nation’s deputy national security adviser Matt Pottinger also agrees with Mosher on this point. “In a recent Zoom call with British officials he said this: ‘There is a growing body of evidence that the lab is the most credible source of the virus.’”
Referring to Mosher as “one of the early brave people” to withstand a level of ridicule for making this point 11 months ago, Carlson said the PRI president was entitled to “somewhat of a victory lap” on his show since his “position seems like a growing consensus.”
In response, on Monday’s live broadcast, Mr. Mosher downplayed any novelty to his insight, stating, “I think the evidence is obvious to anybody who looks at it. Tucker, we have not, in the past year, found a natural analog to the China virus. That is, we have not found a coronavirus … that looks at all like the China virus. It looks like a lab creation.”
He went on to discuss the testimony of Chinese virologist Dr. Li-Meng Yan who fled to the U.S. and claims that COVID-19 was manufactured in a China lab. With three colleagues, Yan issued a research paper in September which casted doubt on the commonly held position that COVID-19 originated naturally. The paper stated that “the natural origin theory, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support.”
These authors observed that any deviation from the natural origin theory is strongly censured. After the publication of her paper, which showed that the virus “should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone,” Yan’s Twitter account was suspended.
Carlson pointed out earlier in the show that the Wuhan lab had “received $3.7 million from the Obama administration.”
In conclusion, Mosher asked, “Why didn’t we hear about this [evidence] earlier? Because the people who are funding the lab” belong to the same party who have been insisting “that this was all a conspiracy theory, that this was not a lab creation at all, that it came from nature, that it had a so-called ‘zoonotic’ origin. It didn’t. They were lying. They were part of the scam that kept this information from the American public for the last year.”
Constitutional expert explains what Mike Pence may do at today’s Electoral College showdown
January 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — There are a number of possibilities that could play out later today when Vice President Mike Pence arrives at the Capitol to fulfill his Constitutional duty to count the Electoral College votes.
LifeSite’s Stephen Kokx sat down with Rick Green, a former Texas State representative and founder of Patriot Academy, to discuss the possible scenarios that may occur.
Green believes that there is a tension between the 12th Amendment and the 1887 Electoral College Act. He said that Vice President Pence has plenary power over the certification process of the Electoral College votes and that he may end up rejecting the Democratic slate of electors from Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Nevada. He may also call for Congress to further investigate possible fraud in the states.
Green said that there is historical precedent for doing this, and that Pence will likely hear the objections raised by House and Senate Republicans and that a debate will ensue between them.
Green further explained that issues surrounding the election itself may play out for several more days, if not weeks, given the rampant fraud committed on November 3rd.
Visit Green’s website, Patriot Academy, by clicking here to learn more about how he helps equip future political leaders with a Biblical outlook.
In Iceland, more people can gather in saunas than in churches
REYKJAVIK, Iceland, January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – According to new COVID-19 guidance issued by the government of Iceland, more people are allowed to gather in saunas than in churches. While churches are still restricted to a maximum of ten people present, other establishments like saunas, restaurants, pools, shopping centers, and movie theaters are now allowed to host more than that amount.
The new guidelines state, “Performing arts, cinemas and other cultural events will be homes for up to 30 people [for] rehearsals and performances. Up to 50 seated guests may be accommodated …”
Additionally, swimming and bathing places may be open to 50 percent capacity.
And yet, assembling for church must be limited to no more than ten people at a time, the only exception being funerals. Still, no more than 50 people are allowed at funerals.
In response to the island country’s COVID-19 restrictions, Iceland’s single Catholic bishop, David B. Tencer, issued a statement on January 4 asking the government to reconsider, citing many glaring inconsistencies.
I ask all those responsible for these regulations to change these rules where justice does not seem to be observed. Our churches are not small. If it is possible to hold a funeral or even a concert with 50 people, how is it that only ten people can attend Mass?
How do I explain to our parishioners that many restaurants can accommodate more customers?
How to explain that in Landakotskirkja there can only be ten people but, for example there can be more than ten in a sauna? We all find it difficult to live in these conditions, but such decisions make it even more difficult.
I pray for all but especially for those who make and apply these rules to consider this matter wisely and correct this unfair discrepancy.
Tencer explained that churches cannot “follow all the current regulations on the restrictions” and has canceled Sunday Masses and Vigil Masses on Saturday nights for the time being.
In the church of Landakotskirkja in downtown Reykjavík, Mass was still celebrated last Sunday for a group of about 50 people when the police came. It was the second time the church was visited by the police for breaking COVID rules. The cathedral, which was once known as the largest church building in Iceland, celebrated Christmas for about 100 Polish faithful. When police arrived, they “had a chat about the importance of the gathering ban and the rules” with the priests, according to grapevine.is.
Jakob Rolland, chancellor of the Catholic Church in Iceland, said about limitations on church attendance in Iceland after the Christmas Mass incident in Landakotskirkja was singled out, “It seems that there are not the same rules that apply, for example, in shops and in the church … I think it needs to be looked at a little bit more closely and here in a large church like this one, the rules should be a little different from what happens in small spaces.”
According to Iceland’s Ministry of Health, the new guidelines are in place until January 12. It is unclear how church gatherings will be treated afterwards.
With a population of over 350,000, Iceland has so far reported only 5,832 coronavirus cases and 29 deaths in almost a year.
Malcom Muggeridge witnessed firsthand the evils of Communism: biographer
January 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Today, Jonathon van Maren interviewed Gregory Wolfe, a Christian author and thinker who has written several books including Malcom Muggeridge: A Biography.
Malcom Muggeridge was a renowned British journalist, author, and Christian apologist who, during one period of his life, was drawn to Communism, and, in fact, moved with his wife to the Soviet Union during the 1930s. After the experience, he became an outspoken advocate against Marxism and Communism.
Wolfe notes how Muggeridge was part of the 20th century’s “conservative resistance figures” together with other authors and thinkers such as J.R.R. Tolkien, G.K. Chesterton, and C.S. Lewis.
Muggeridge believed there was a connection between abortion and euthanasia, both of which have “roots in certain modern utilitarian ideas,” Wolfe said. He had a “deeper understanding of the kind of the culture of death,” and “a vision of reality that in which human life had a higher purpose than just individual self-satisfaction.”
Lastly, Wolfe details the personal and spiritual struggle which Muggeridge had in his lifetime. He was an “Augustinian restless heart” who had “struggle with sin and temptation” but was always motivated by “the endlessness of desire, and the desire for God.”
For a full listing of episodes, and to subscribe to various channels, visit our Acast webpage here.
To receive weekly emails when a new episode is uploaded, subscribe below:
LIVE: President Trump’s speech at the March to Save America
Big Tech is censoring us. Subscribe to our email list and bookmark LifeSiteNews.com to continue getting our news. Subscribe now.
January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – President Trump will be addressing the March to Save America at the White House Ellipse any minute. The rally has convened tens of thousands of supporters on the day of Congress’s slated vote on the certification of the results of the Electoral College.
More than 90 Republican congressmen will object to electors from contested swing states and over 110 state lawmakers have petitioned Vice President Pence to halt the proceedings and allow more time for review. The vote takes on added significance as Democrats appear to take suspect leads in both Georgia senate races.
There is still time to contact your representatives, which you can do quickly with LifeSite’s Voter Voice campaign.
Make sure you get the real truth about the electoral college vote challenge
January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, are actively suppressing or removing content that contradicts their views. Specifically, Facebook and YouTube have pledged to remove content that challenges the Presidential election results or the integrity of the 2020 election.
Roughly 18% of Americans get their news solely from social media. That means almost 20% of the nation is relying on heavily censored information and lies. LifeSiteNews is committed to bringing you THE TRUTH. We’ve been suspended by YouTube twice and our site has been labeled as fake news by Facebook, but that doesn’t stop us. In fact it means we’re doing something right.
We’re bringing you real time coverage of the electoral college debate today and it’s likely going to get us censored or banned from Facebook and YouTube. But you deserve the truth.
Sign up for our emails to ensure you’re actually getting our news! We offer a daily or biweekly newsletter depending on your penchant for news. Sign-up here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/ajax/subscribe
Report shows 2020 helped make the world’s richest people $1.8 trillion richer
January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – The world’s 500 richest billionaires collectively added an eye-watering $1.8 trillion to their wealth in 2020, in direct contrast to the many small and mid-size businesses worldwide forced to close due to government-imposed COVID-19 lockdowns.
According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index which was released on January 4, the world’s richest billionaires' growth in 2020 is the biggest gain in the eight-year history of their index report.
At the top of the richest list is Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos, whose estimated net worth is $186 billion.
He is followed by the founder of Tesla Elon Musk, who increased his wealth to $175 billion. At the start of 2020, Musk was estimated to be worth around $26.4 billion.
According to a Bloomberg report, Musk’s wealth increase is “possibly the fastest bout of wealth creation in history.”
Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, for the first time in the history of the Bloomberg Index, did not make it into the top two richest people. His wealth stands at $131 billion, which places him in third place behind Musk.
Facebook’s CEO and founder Mark Zuckerberg stands is the world’s fifth-richest person with a total net worth estimated to be around $104 billion.
According to a survey done by the International Trade Centre in 2020, it is mainly small and mid-sized businesses globally who have endured the burden of government-imposed COVID-19 lockdowns, not big corporations with billionaires at the helm.
Chuck Collins, who serves as the director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the U.S.-based Institute for Policy Studies, said that the massive surge in wealth by billionaires undermines the common COVID catchphrase that we are all “in this together.”
“Surging billionaire wealth hits a painful nerve for the millions of people who have lost loved ones and experienced declines in their health, wealth, and livelihoods,” Collins was quoted as saying in the Bloomberg report.
“Worse, it undermines any sense that we are `in this together’ — the solidarity required to weather the difficult months ahead.”
Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum, with the backing of the United Nations, has called for a “Great Reset” of the world’s economic systems, which has the backing of many major world leaders and billionaires such as George Soros.
Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò has warned that the “Great Reset” is nothing more than a plan by the world's billionaires to bring about a globalist socialist surveillance state.
Viganò has described the “Great Reset” as the “final revolution.”
“The French Revolution wiped out the Western aristocracy…The Industrial Revolution obliterated the peasants and spread the proletarianization which led to the disaster of Socialism and Communism…The Revolution of ’68 demolished the family and the school,” wrote Vigano.
“This Great Reset, desired by the globalist elite, represents the final revolution with which to create a shapeless and anonymous mass of slaves connected to the internet, confined to the house, threatened by an endless series of pandemics designed by those who already have the miraculous vaccine ready.”
In December, Pope Francis called for a new “economic system” after launching a collaboration called the “Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican.”
This partnership with high-level global corporations such as the Rockefeller Foundation and Mastercard is based on the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. The Council’s guiding principles state that “capitalism must evolve to promote a more sustainable, trusted, equitable, and inclusive system that works for everyone.”
In November, LifeSiteNews reported that the Gates Foundation has used its financial prowess to back Microchips Biotech, which is a company that designs a type of contraceptive microchip commissioned directly by Gates himself.
In March of 2020, Gates said “Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.”
In June, Amazon temporarily blocked the sale of a booklet regarding COVID-19, which was penned by a journalist whose views on the virus run contrary to the mainstream media narrative.
This caused Musk to call for the breakup of Amazon, who implied that Bezos and his company Amazon is a monopoly, saying, it’s “Time to break up Amazon. Monopolies are wrong!”
Meanwhile Musk has also said that he will not take a COVID-19 vaccine and called Gates a “knucklehead.”
Last year Musk also called into question the accuracy of COVID-19 tests after testing positive and negative twice in the same day, with the same machine, saying that something “extremely bogus is going on.”
You have 2 hours to contact your legislators about the electoral college vote
Challenge to the Electoral College vote needs YOUR help! Contact your U.S. Rep and Senator today!
Januar 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — Today is the day for a challenge to the Electoral College vote in Congress to take place (starting at noon). It is critical that readers contact their legislators to demand they guarantee the integrity of the election before it is too late.
In what may be the last opportunities to protect the integrity of the 2020 general election, and by extension the pro-life, pro-family, and pro-religious freedom policies that are under attack, readers may contact their representatives and senators, all in one place, by clicking HERE.
Pro-abortion Democrats seize full federal government with apparent Georgia Senate wins
GEORGIA, January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Democrats appear to have cemented their takeover of the federal government Tuesday by electing Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock to the United States Senate, sending Republican incumbents David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler home and giving Democrat Joe Biden a united Democrat Congress to work with when he takes office as President of the United States on January 20, which is all but imminent.
With Biden being declared the winner of the presidential election last fall and the House of Representatives remaining in Democrat hands, the direction of America’s next two-to-four years came down to these two Senate seats, which went on to runoff elections because none of the Senate candidates broke 50% in November, per state election rules.
As of Wednesday morning, Warnock has officially been declared the victor over Loeffler, while Ossoff has a slight edge over Perdue in a race that hasn’t yet been formally called. Both Democrats have declared victory, but neither Republican has conceded defeat.
Assuming those results hold, however, Ossoff and Warnock’s victories give the Senate a 50-50 split, effectively giving Democrats control because all tie votes would be broken by very likely incoming Vice President Kamala Harris.
Democrats are expected to use unified government to pursue a litany of far-reaching agenda items, such as legislation to codify Roe v. Wade in federal law or the so-called “Equality Act.” More worryingly to conservatives, however, Democrats can also pursue a range of agenda items that could effectively immunize themselves from future elections, such as “packing” the Supreme Court, permanently increasing their Senate seats by granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and/or Puerto Rico, and granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants on the expectation that most would become Democrat voters.
(With such a narrow margin of control, Senate Democrats will technically still be constrained by the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 votes to pass most legislation. But while Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to consider procedural maneuvers such as the two-speech rule to circumvent the filibuster, his Democrat successor Chuck Schumer is not expected to show any such restraint.)
It remains to be seen what role, if any, election fraud played in the race, or if Perdue and/or Loeffler will demand recounts or investigations of the results. Another factor that likely contributed to the GOP’s defeat was McConnell blocking a Trump-backed increase of COVID-19 relief checks from $600 to $2,000.
LIVE coverage: Debate over electoral college vote and pro-Trump DC rallies
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Today the U.S. Congress will hear challenges to the electoral college’s certification of the 2020 presidential election amid rampant reports of voter fraud. LifeSiteNews journalists are both on the ground in Washington, D.C., where hundreds of thousands of President Donald Trump supporters are gathered for rallies, and at their desks live-blogging the Congressional proceedings. The live blog below will update in real time so you can follow along without refreshing this page.
BREAKING: Over 100 state lawmakers petition VP Pence to delay today’s election certification
Challenge to the Electoral College vote needs YOUR help! Contact your U.S. Rep and Senator today!
January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – Over 100 state lawmakers from battleground states have petitionedVice President Mike Pence for a delay of Congress’s certification of election results from their states. The lawmakers cite the need for further review of unresolved issues and fraud allegations.
“We write to ask you to comply with our reasonable request to afford our nation more time to properly review the 2020 election by postponing the January 6th opening and counting of the electoral votes for at least 10 days,” reads a letter signed by 88 Republican state lawmakers from Pennsylvania.
The proposal resembles one being pushed by a group of 11 GOP senators, who vow to object to swing state electors barring an emergency 10-day audit of election returns in the disputed states.
In their letter, the Pennsylvania legislators seek time for “our respective bodies to meet, investigate, and as a body vote on certification or decertification of the election.”
“Additional time must be afforded for the legislatures to meet and for state legislators to fulfill their constitutional duties,” the letter continues.
Another two dozen state lawmakers have said that they have sent similar letters to Pence, according to Just the News.
“The signatures are reportedly required by 10:00 Eastern Time Wednesday morning, at which time the letters will presumably be forwarded to Pence,” the online news outlet reported.
Vice President Pence will preside over the joint session of Congress that will be convened today at 1 p.m. to vote on the certification of Electoral College results. Legal experts have argued that Pence has constitutional authority to order a halt to the proceedings until any election problems are settled.
Rick Green, a Constitution expert, outlined this approach in a recent interview with LifeSiteNews, saying that Pence could “set up the rules” for the congressional vote. “He could actually say, ‘Listen, there’s going to be debate on this. I’m the presiding officer’.”
“He could stop everything right from the beginning on January 6 and say, ‘Okay, we’re going to have a hearing right now, in session, and allow people to start presenting evidence’,” Green said.
In addition to Pennsylvania, letters urging Pence to pause the counting of electoral votes are circulating among lawmakers in Arizona, Michigan, Georgia, and Wisconsin. They appear to be organized by the 501(c)(4) group, Got Freedom.
The group had hosted a private call over the weekend with more than 300 swing state lawmakers and President Trump “to review the extensive evidence of irregularities and lawlessness in the 2020 presidential election.” Got Freedom said that the meeting happened “at the request of state legislators” and that the letters did as well.
“I'm honored to work with state legislators who recognize with their Constitutional authority comes Constitutional responsibility,” said Phill Kline, a Got Freedom spokesman who helped orchestrate the letter campaign.
Kline is also the director of the Amistad Project, a major election integrity watchdog that filed a lawsuit last month arguing that “federal and local statutes interfere with state legislatures’ constitutional right to certify Presidential electors, in a direct violation of separation of powers.”
“Currently, state law and the executive branch refusal have prevented state legislatures from meeting as a body to review, investigate and debate the method in which the election was conducted,” the group said.
“Our founding fathers anticipated the conflict in which we are now in and resolved it by looking to state legislators,” Kline wrote on Twitter earlier this week. “State legislators, the American people are looking at you now to perform your constitutional duties.”
CA demands insurance companies cover breast removals for trans teen girls
SACRAMENTO, California, January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — California’s Department of Insurance has signaled it will now require health insurance companies operating in the state to cover double mastectomies for gender dysphoric teenage girls. The government agency asserted the removal of their breasts is no longer considered “cosmetic” surgery but is instead required “reconstructive” surgery of “abnormal structures of the body caused by congenital defects.”
In other words, the healthy breasts of confused teenage girls are deemed “abnormal structures” and “congenital defects” if that girl decides she is a boy. The state of California now equates breasts on gender dysphoric young girls with other medical conditions such as cancer or trauma.
The move by the commissioner’s office was triggered by an inquiry from San Diego’s TransFamily Support Services regarding past denials of coverage for “male chest surgery for patients under 18 years old who are transitioning from female to male.”
“For far too long, individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria have had to battle a host of challenges to get access to gender-affirming care in order to be their true selves,” said Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara in a statement, responding to the transgender activist organization.
Lara blamed “[s]ocial stigma, misconceptions about gender dysphoria and its treatment, and outdated medical criteria,” which he insisted without exception are “barriers to necessary medical care that can lead to tragic results for individuals with gender dysphoria, especially for our transgender youth.”
Lara himself is openly homosexual.
At Lara’s urging, the Insurance Department’s General Counsel issued an Opinion Letter stating that “denying coverage for mastectomy and reconstruction of a male chest based solely on age is impermissible under state laws requiring coverage of reconstructive surgery.”
Brandon Showalter, a journalist who in recent years has emerged as an expert on the tragic medical mutilation of healthy young bodies enabled by the cult of transgenderism, called the procedure “breast amputation surgery.”
The change in language is an “unethical, predatory, and despicable attempt to even more viciously abuse children via gender ideology,” Maria Keffler, co-founder of the recently-formed Partners for Ethical Care, told Showalter on Monday.
“By circumventing parental consent in order to medicalize children without any minimum age restriction, the California Department of Insurance, whose very letterhead claims to ‘Protect, Prevent, and Preserve’, does exactly the opposite,” said Keffler.
“The active promotion of transgenderism has resulted in massive uncontrolled and unconsented experimentation upon children and adolescents,” Dr. Michelle Cretella, MD, FCP, president of the American College of Pediatricians told LifeSiteNews previously. “This is child abuse.”
“Transgenderism is a psychological disorder, not a biological one,” said Cretella.
“The commissioner is requiring insurance companies to pay surgeons to remove the healthy breasts of emotionally distraught girls and women and implying it is ‘necessary treatment’ — yet we already have multiple studies demonstrating that mutilation does not treat gender dysphoria,” Cretella told PJ Media’s Tyler O’Neil.
LifeSiteNews asked the California Department of Insurance if the recent move might launch a cascade of future rule changes, insisting insurance companies identify the flat chests of young male teens as abnormal “congenital defects” requiring “reconstructive surgery.”
LifeSiteNews also asked what would be the rationale of the department for limiting its requirements to “top surgery” for teens? Why not similarly require “bottom surgery,” i.e., the surgical refashioning of male genitalia into a pseudo-vagina for gender-confused boys or the inverting of female genitalia into a pseudo-penis for gender-confused girls?
Apparently, requiring insurance coverage for genital mutilation for gender-confused young people — where a penis and testicles will be identified as an “abnormal structure” on boys and a vagina on a girl will be identified as a “congential defect” — might be on the near horizon.
“The general counsel opinion letter interprets existing state law as applied to a specific set of facts in response to a public inquiry. In this instance, the department received an inquiry regarding the use of strict age minimums in insurance coverage criteria specifically for female-to-male chest surgery. Accordingly, the opinion letter was limited to the set of facts presented in the inquiry,” Madison Voss, Senior Deputy Press Secretary for the California Department of Insurance, told LifeSiteNews in an email.
“The fact that this opinion letter does not address other surgeries should not be construed as an indication that similar legal protections do not extend to other cases under current law,” explained Voss.
Voss indicated that the department would consider requiring coverage for “bottom surgeries” if they were to receive an inquiry into that topic.
“The department firmly believes in Californians’ right to access to health coverage and services, free from discrimination and consistent with the law and generally accepted standards of care,” explained Voss. “This is especially critical for members of the LGBTQ+ community, who have historically faced countless barriers to getting health insurance coverage and access to necessary medical care.”
“The insurance companies, no doubt, would prefer not to pay for expensive, unnecessary surgery. And now the Insurance Commission, which is a relatively obscure agency of the state, is acting at the behest of activists, putting pressure on insurance companies.”
Roback Morse told LifeSiteNews that she wondered if the California Insurance Commission will apply the same amount of pressure to health insurance providers to cover surgery costs when these same patients choose to revert to their biological sex in the future.
Boris Johnson shuts down UK again in 3rd COVID lockdown
WESTMINSTER, U.K., January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — U.K. prime minister Boris Johnson has announced the third national lockdown in a supposed effort to combat COVID-19, as people have been ordered by law to remain at home unless they have a “reasonable excuse.”
Johnson made the announcement at 8 P.M. GMT Monday, with members of the U.K. Parliament and the public hearing the news simultaneously via news networks. Parliament has now been recalled and is to vote on the restrictions tomorrow. The previous national lockdown in November 2020 was approved by a vote of 516-38.
Addressing the nation, Johnson declared that hospitals are under “more pressure from COVID than at any time since the start of the pandemic” and consequently that the upcoming weeks will be the “hardest yet.” He justified the restrictions by noting that the U.K.’s chief medical officer (CMO) had advised him that “if action is not taken, NHS capacity may be overwhelmed in 21 days.”
Stay-at-home orders are in place, and violations are punishable by fines of £200 initially and up to a maximum of £6,400. Vast swathes of society have been ordered to close, among them “non-essential” stores, restaurants, hospitality venues, accommodation venues, leisure centers, gyms, and the entertainment industry.
So also have primary and secondary schools been shut, along with colleges and universities, and summer exams are set to be canceled. In fact, in a press conference this afternoon, Johnson refused to confirm if students would be back in classrooms before the summer holidays, saying instead that he had “optimism and fundamental hope” of a change in the spring.
“It is against the law to meet socially with family or friends unless they are part of your household or support bubble,” the guidance stipulates. A single dose of exercise is permitted per day and should be in the local area to one’s accommodations.
In a change to the previous two lockdowns, churches are permitted to remain open for both public worship and private prayer.
Johnson heavily linked the lifting of restrictions to the mass rollout of COVID vaccines, saying that if the “top four priority groups” of the populace are vaccinated, “we will have removed huge numbers of people from the path of the virus. And of course, that will eventually enable us to lift many of the restrictions we have endured for so long.”
“If the rollout of the vaccine program continues to be successful,” he continued, “if deaths start to fall as the vaccine takes effect, and critically, if everyone plays that part by following the rules, then I hope we can steadily move out of lockdown, reopening schools after the February half term and starting cautiously to move regions down the tiers.”
Johnson did not address how the supposedly nearly overwhelmed health system intends to administer the necessary 13,900,000 vaccines by the middle of February.
Nor was any firm end date given for the cessation of the national lockdown, but the amendment to the current legislation suggests that restrictions of this nature could be in place until March 31, 2021. The government furlough scheme, supplementing the wages of those whose jobs have been affected by the lockdowns, has already been extended to the end of April this year.
The new variant of COVID-19, a major justification for the lockdown, is between “50 and 70% more transmissible,” Johnson claimed, yet there have been no data to show that it is any more dangerous than the previous version of the virus. As the Lockdown Sceptics website pointed out, many of the restrictions in the latest lockdown are already part of the strictest in Tier 4, which had been in place across most of the country: “But if the existing restrictions haven’t been sufficient to contain the virus in Tier 4 areas like London, why does Boris think extending those restrictions to the rest of the country will ‘squash the sombrero’?”
Diagnostic pathologist Dr. Clare Craig presented data compiled by quantitative analyst Joel Smalley to show that despite the drastic warnings from the CMO, “[n]et hospital admissions are lower now than at two points in Autumns,” and hospital admissions are normal. Smalley’s charts additionally note that mortality data “show no overall abnormality this winter,” and on the current trajectory, winter deaths could be “substantially lower than the last few years.”
Back in November, Professor Philip Thomas of Bristol University calculated that the U.K. government’s lockdown response to COVID could in fact cause the equivalent of 560,000 deaths. That figure is “rather greater than the UK’s military and civilian losses in the second world war,” Thomas noted.
Professor Chris Whitty, CMO for England, hinted at restrictions becoming a normal occurrence in years ahead. Whitty suggested that while there will come a point in the future when the risk from the virus is “something society is prepared to tolerate” and there are “almost no restrictions at all ... we might have to bring in a few in next winter for example, that’s possible, because winter will benefit the virus.”
Scotland, Northern Ireland (N.I.), Wales, and Ireland are also in the midst of restrictive lockdowns. Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon announced the restrictions a few hours before Johnson, and in N.I., the current stay-at-home message is to be placed into law, in line with England and Scotland. Wales is in the midst of a national lockdown, which started on December 20 and is due to last for three weeks before then being reviewed. Ireland announced its own national lockdown just before Christmas, which is due to last until the end of January, although “Tánaiste Leo Varadkar warned the Cabinet it is unlikely many of the restrictions will be lifted after the mooted end date of January 31st.”
Whilst England, Wales and N.I. have seen the churches permitted to remain open in the lockdowns, Scotland and Ireland have had churches closed. Speaking to LifeSiteNews before Christmas, Anthony Murphy, director of the Lumen Fidei Institute and editor of Catholic Voice magazine, described the ban on Mass in Ireland as “an unjust and discriminatory attack on our faith fuelled by the anti-Catholicism of our political leaders,” adding that “we have a duty to resist this law which takes Ireland back to the penal times.”
LifeSite VP: I was in DC today. Here’s what I saw, and what I think about it.
WASHINGTON, D.C., January 6, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – LifeSiteNews reports on matters of life, faith, family, and culture. Since 1973, the United States has lived under a deformed law that dehumanized an entire segment of humanity and has resulted in at least 60 million dead babies. Let that number sink in.
More recently, unelected judges have decided that the fundamental reality of biologically determined gender is unlawful. Just this week, Democrats in the House of Representatives banned the use of terms such as mother and father, son and daughter. LifeSiteNews has never condoned political violence in any way – indeed, the whole pro-life movement is an anti-violence movement, opposing violence committed against defenseless humans – but we also realize we cannot be blind to the terrible legal, political, and cultural damage that has been and continues to be perpetrated by the radical left. Theirs is a totalitarian mindset which allows no dialogue, no debate, no law, and no order.
Today’s violence at the U.S. Capitol is not an isolated incident. It is the result of ever increasing and ever oppressive state-sanctioned lawlessness that has only ever become a matter for debate to the political class but which is becoming intolerable to mainstream America.
As I covered today’s events in person in Washington, D.C., I saw a portrait of middle America: overwhelmingly Christian, but racially diverse, with people of every age group and from every corner of the country. Yes, people were upset at the blatant voter fraud and election law abuse that happened under the cover of COVID-19. Yes, people understood that the majority of the GOP was not going to back Trump in his demands (after all, Trump was elected precisely because he had the spine most GOP politicians lack). Yes, there were young men and women who looked like they wouldn’t much mind a brawl with Antifa. But I did not see a single Trump supporter calling for chaos and mayhem like we witnessed with BLM all this summer.
What I saw was a lot of people who love God and love their country. And the vast, vast majority of them truly were overwhelmingly peaceful.
We will not know who stepped over the line from protest to mob until the investigations (which are surely forthcoming) are conducted, but we do know one thing: When a long train of abuses are piled one atop another with ever increasing oppressiveness, and freedom and democracy are blatantly flaunted and crushed as they were in this November’s elections and the fascistic COVID lockdowns that essentially put most of America under house arrest, the people will respond, and not always peacefully.
The violent events that occurred in Washington, D.C. are not good for America, but let’s not kid ourselves: Trump did not cause them by demanding election integrity. Decades and decades of increasing lawlessness and government tyranny did.
The politics of the Magi: Finding the source of true compassion
Challenge to the Electoral College vote needs YOUR help! Contact your U.S. Rep and Senator today!
January 21, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — The 2020 presidential election was a clash of deeply held and dramatically contrasting political/philosophical views. It was a turning point, a clash between two very different visions of the nation’s future.
The Church today celebrates Epiphany, a feast recalling another great turning point that had vast implications, political as much as religious.
In the Gospel story (Matthew 2), King Herod was much disturbed by the arrival of three distinguished sages, or “wise men,” who had come in search of a prophesied “New King.” It’s easy to understand his anxiety. The King these dignitaries (whom we call “Magi”) were seeking wasn’t him.
Moreover, their journey from realms far away had great symbolic significance. It indicated how widespread and important the prophecy was. And this fact did not bode well for the staying power of Herod’s regime.
Today, we know that Jesus was more than just a contender for a worldly throne. The ruthless Herod probably could have dealt with that, as he’d dispatched other potential rivals, including members of his own family.
In fact, the coming of Christ suggested something far more than “regime change.” It was the beginning of what today we would refer to as a “New World Order.” And it involved a profound change in how people thought about their lives, about their relationships to other people, and their relationship to God.
It also gave us the Church, which was intended both to preserve Christ’s teaching and to provide a system for spreading it throughout the world.
History has recorded other occasions when new ideas have burst onto the scene. The French Revolution was one. Reflecting the influence of Freemasonry, it proclaimed “liberty, equality, and fraternity.”
Exalted words like these stir our longing for justice, and thus become goals toward which people might strive. Unfortunately, the pursuit of such lofty ideals at the political level has often caused much suffering and injustice — not to mention death on a monumental scale.
Nowadays, “liberty, equality, and fraternity” are interpreted in somewhat different ways: as “openness, welcoming, and diversity.”
More current and fashionable (or, as it’s said, more “politically correct”), these have a vague appeal, and so can be used by clever politicians to influence attitudes, manipulate public opinion, and accumulate power.
At bottom, however, they’re too ephemeral. They lack substance and durability. Trying to apply them in tangible ways, to bring about actual improvements in life, is like trying to catch smoke.
Jesus’ teaching — his “platform,” if you will — is the only effective formula for positive change. That’s because it’s based not on politics, but on compassion.
But even compassion, of itself, is not adequate for improving society. Political scientist James Q. Wilson pointed out in his 1993 book, The Moral Sense, that compassion is strongest in the immediate circle of the family. It decreases the farther out we proceed. This means that mere goodwill toward others — what we might call the “bond of common humanity” — is too general and diffuse to encourage true compassion for those with whom we have no direct connection.
The only way we can even approach true compassion for other than our own family members is by accepting Jesus as our King. This acceptance joins us to all other believers throughout the world. Christ’s love becomes our common bond to humanity, giving substance to our longing for unity, and making us into one family in Him.
It’s impossible to know if the Magi’s visit sparked some insight within Herod that this love was what the wise men were searching for. If so, his subsequent attempt to kill off all the male children in the age group of this New King certainly would suggest he didn’t take that insight to heart.
But it could explain his anxiety.
Herod was a man totally devoted to power politics. And the politics of the Magi — the politics of love — was something foreign to him. It likely would have frightened him.
Unfortunately, so it is with too many of our leaders today.
The results of Georgia’s run-off election raise the specter of a new Herod. If Joe Biden is confirmed in office with Democrats in control of both Houses of Congress, Christ’s teaching and those who adhere to it will surely be facing a new challenge.
Pray for new wise men who may once again find the source of true compassion.
A priest of the Diocese of Camden, New Jersey, Rev. Michael P. Orsi currently serves as parochial vicar at St. Agnes Parish in Naples, Florida. He is host of “Action for Life TV,” a weekly cable television series devoted to pro-life issues, and his writings appear in numerous publications and online journals. His TV show episodes can be viewed online HERE.
DC mayor who ignored violent BLM riots calls in National Guard to police Trump supporters
January 6, 2021 (Family Research Council) – For months, Democrats have been the riot party -- the tear-down-statues, vandalize-memorials, loot-small-businesses, and burn-everything-else voice in America. In Washington, D.C. in June, fires blazed up and down the National Mall, and what was the liberal mayor's response? To send our national guardsmen packing. Now, six months later, the president's supporters are coming to town. And what is Mayor Muriel Bowser's (D) response? Send back-up!
The hypocrisy isn't a surprise -- not after a full year of Democratic officials standing by while their cities smoldered in the name of "free assembly." Vandals and criminals "bashed through windows," shattering glass along the streets of D.C., and destroying businesses -- large and small alike. The city, Bowser said at the time, was prepared for "multiple days of demonstration." But in the end, no one was prepared for the chaos in America's capital city, as her administration stood by and watched the devastation happen.
At the time, even some Democratic sympathizers were surprised. In places like the Chicago Tribune, people lamented the silent encouragement of so many state and local officials. "If gay people were pouring into bars and punching straight people, I as a gay man would speak out," Albert Eisenberg wrote. "[W]hen violence has come from the conservative side, I don't hesitate to stand against it. But it's not. There have been no right-wing groups storming campuses and flinging feces at speakers we don't like; no tea party mobs destroying property, assaulting police officers, and paralyzing our major cities; and no Republican senators calling their colleagues murderers just weeks after a political assassination attempt. From Portland to New Haven to Washington, the violence we're witnessing is largely a product of the hard Left, and the reaction from mainstream liberals -- mostly silence, dismissiveness, equivocation -- means it will continue to flourish."
Flourish it did, even as Mayor Bowser resolutely -- and inexplicably -- kicked out hundreds of Utah Army National Guardsmen from D.C. With so little warning that it caught Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy by surprise, the troops were told to "pack up and leave their hotel rooms" in downtown Washington immediately. Mayor Bowser thought theirs was an unwelcome presence while violence gripped the city.
Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) was shocked. "Just heard that Mayor Bowser is kicking the Utah National Guard out of all DC hotels tomorrow. More than 1200 troops from 10 states are being evicted. This is unacceptable," he tweeted. Fact checkers raced to cover for the liberal leader, insisting to Americans that Bowser wasn't responsible for the move -- which was hilarious, since she herself bragged about the decision on Twitter. "Senator -- until they are recalled home -- which I have formally requested from the President, your troops are in D.C. hotels. However, D.C. residents cannot pay their hotel bills. The Army can clear that up with the hotel today, and we are willing to help."
Fast-forward six months, as Americans stream into town to pray and march to the capital in peaceful protest of the election certification. Bowser's response is apoplectic. She's asked for 340 D.C. National Guard troops and traffic control points all across the city. Then, stoking panic about a movement whose only crime before the wild November clash has been burning a couple of Black Lives Matters flags (not tormenting an entire metropolitan area), she warns that a grave threat has come to the capital. Conservatives. "I am asking Washingtonians and those who live in the region to stay out of the downtown area on Tuesday and Wednesday and not to engage with demonstrators who come to our city seeking confrontation. We will do what we must to ensure all who attend remain peaceful," Bowser said. "We will not allow people to incite violence, intimidate our residents, or cause destruction in our city."
Actually, history shows, she will. It just depends whose side you're on.
Big Brother goes to Washington: Newspeak in the halls of Congress
Challenge to the Electoral College vote needs YOUR help! Contact your U.S. Rep and Senator today!
January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — It’s now just 37 years after the date George Orwell gave to his renowned novel 1984, written at the beginning of the Cold War era, about a future totalitarian dystopia. Orwell rightly saw the replacement of classical language by a revolutionary ideologized version (which he called “Newspeak” in the novel) as a key element in increasing government vigilance over the life-style and mental processes of supposedly free citizens.
Well, Big Brother has now scored an astonishing coup-d’état in the world’s most powerful government body, the U.S. Congress. The House of Representatives, bowing the knee to “inclusivity” — in this case rebellion against the very order of nature, in which God created us “male and female” (Gn 1:27) — has voted to eliminate from the vocabulary of all House committee statements no less than 30 gender-specific terms. It has also added a grotesque new pronoun that blurs even the primordial mathematical distinction between one and many: our congressional thought police, led by the “Catholic” Nancy Pelosi, have decreed that the exclusive, retrograde and offensively un-woke terms “himself” and “herself” are now verboten. Henceforth both are to be replaced by … “themself.”
The vote was carried by 217 votes to 206, laying bare yet again the increasingly deep abyss that divides the American people and their major parties along conservative-progressive fault-lines. It seems all or nearly all Republicans voted against the measure, while all or nearly all Democrats voted for it, even though a recent poll indicates that about 2 out of 3 Americans, including quite a few professed liberals, object to the ever-increasing imposition of gender ideology on our daily lives.
Some of the newspeak terms now being imposed on Capitol Hill are so contrived that they sound like the stuff of satire. At least “mother” and “father,” “husband” and “wife,” can be replaced by another single word — “parent” and “spouse,” respectively. But our congressional Democrats evidently found themselves more challenged by “aunt” and “uncle.” For these pesky terms, while equally intolerable to gender ideologues, cannot be replaced by a single English word. So our new lords of lexicography have resorted to an awkward double-barrel construction: “parent’s sibling.”
Hmm. Given the status of the U.S. Congress, one wonders how long it will be until school administrators and teachers, taking a lead from our august legislators in Washington, will start instructing our children not to refer to their aunts and uncles as such, and scolding them in the event of non-compliance. In the context of a narrative about such relatives, using the grammatical third person, the required newspeak term is perhaps relatively manageable. But that will probably not be sufficient to satisfy the demands of political correctness. After all, logical consistency is a hallmark of any self-respecting ideology. So we’ll also need a reset when it comes to referring to such relatives by their proper names, and addressing them in conversation.
Parents may need to brace themselves for a not-too-distant day when Johnny comes home from school asking, “Hey, Mom, will Parent’s-Sibling Emma be coming for Thanksgiving this year?” And when end-of-the-year holidays arrive, will Dad’s brother be taken aback when his young niece (sorry, “sibling’s child” in the new congressional dictionary), rushes to give him a hug with the greeting, “Hi, Parent’s-Sibling Ken! Merry Christmas! Great to see you again!”
Perhaps, for the sake of brevity, we’ll eventually be allowed to say just “P-S Emma” and “P-S Ken”? But wait — maybe not. In conversation, “P-S” might sound too much like “BS,” thereby coming too close for comfort to the truth about this kind of bizarre linguistic imposture. Free, sane and Christian citizens need to resist it firmly by resolutely persisting in the use of traditional, honest-to-God language in referring to all these natural, and indeed sacred, human relationships.
Smartphones enable ‘cancel culture’ to ruin the lives of teens whose brains aren’t fully developed
January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – I graduated from high school in 2006, and the first iPhone came out the following year. Kids had cell phones before that – I got mine when I earned my driver’s license – but we used them primarily for texting each other. Our lives did not unfold online; we couldn’t livestream or constantly take videos of the various goings-on; Snapchat and Instagram didn’t exist yet, and Facebook only showed up halfway through tenth grade, before it was abandoned for cooler platforms and became the hangout of middle-aged relatives. In short, we could screw up without our peers serving as potential snitches. We could say stupid things, tell stupid jokes, and make mistakes without our dumbest moments being immortalized and stowed away by the omnipresent eyes of smartphone cameras.
These days, that is no longer the case. Smartphones are the center of teen life, and any activity – no matter how mundane – is recorded and blasted off to an ever-expanding network of acquaintances. Smartphones shape the daily lives of teens and adolescents, and they filter their activities through their social media accounts. The results have been high stress levels; cyber-bullying that carries on even when teens are at home; sexting; revenge porn; skyrocketing levels of depression and suicide. Parents purchase their children the very tools that make them miserable. Everyone is trapped in a virtual reality; everyone’s worst moments are captured on-camera, where they wait to resurface years later.
A recent story snapped this all into focus once again. Late last year, 18-year-old Jimmy Galligan released a three-second video of one of his former classmates using a racial slur. Galligan is bi-racial, and the girl using the slur was a white cheerleader. Mimi Groves had just been accepted to the University of Tennessee, and promptly lost her spot on the cheerleading squad before being forced off campus entirely after the admissions office was swamped with demands that Groves be kicked out. Groves was immediately demonized, and even the New York Times covered the story, presenting Galligan as a justice-driven hero. Galligan and Groves got famous.
The context tells a different story. The three-second video was several years old, and showed a 15-year-old Groves, who had just gotten her learner’s permit, saying to nobody in particular: “I can drive, expletive.” The video went around on Snapchat, which is where Galligan spotted it and saved it for future use. He then waited for years – and released it when he found out that she’d been accepted into the University of Tennessee. Galligan made no apology for intentionally attempting to destroy a girl’s life over a stupid teenage mistake. “I wanted to get her where she would understand the severity of that word,” he said. Mimi Groves’ mistake has now been immortalized in America’s paper of record, where her great-grandchildren will easily be able to find it.
There are many compelling lessons to be taken from this tale of teenage stupidity and cruelty, but every parent should confront one key takeaway: Teenagers should not get smartphones. I’ve written many columns for LifeSiteNews explaining why kids should not get smartphones, so I won’t repeat them all here. But stories like this add another reason: They ensure that kids with undeveloped brains have their dumbest moments recorded for posterity and circulated. These photos and videos and voice notes turn their futures into minefields, with folks like Galligan or exes or former friends or people doing oppo research just waiting to make them public at the right time, for maximum destructive force. The careful work of years can evaporate overnight. It happens all the time. It could happen to your kids.
Vanity Fair’s Nancy Jo Sales opens her exposé American Girls: Social Media and the Secret Lives of Teenagers with a conversation she had with several teenage girls at a mall. Social media, they told her, was ruining their lives – but they couldn’t stop scrolling and snapping. That, in my view, is where parents should step in. Kids will make mistakes. They will say dumb things, and most will say bad things. Those mistakes should not define their lives, and it should not destroy their opportunities. It is up to adults to protect kids from themselves. They are simply not equipped to own and operate these life-changing and incredibly destructive tools – and stories illustrating this fact emerge almost daily.
For the love of your children: Do not give them a smartphone.
And if your children’s friends have smartphones, your children must be aware that their mistakes and stupid, immature, or rude comments may still be captured by their friends’ phones, and have the capacity to completely ruin their lives.
Abp. Viganò: Abolition of anti-Modernist Oath is ‘a desertion, a betrayal of unheard-of gravity’
January 6, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) – In a new statement, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò presents the history of Pope Saint Pius X's Oath Against Modernism, with the help of which this Pope tried to fight back against heresy in the Church. The Italian archbishop praises this attempt and adds that the 1967 abandonment of this oath by Pope Paul VI was a “desertion,” and a “betrayal,” suggesting that Modernism was no longer rejected. Those clergymen who participated at the Second Vatican Council and were involved in its innovations, such as then-Professor Joseph Ratzinger, all had still taken that anti-Modernist Oath. Viganò explains that Ratzinger “‘played a crucial role in overturning the preparatory schemas of the Council and initiating a completely new approach,’ and that in doing so he violated the Oath.”
Archbishop Viganò adds: “It would, however, be desirable that he, above all in consideration of the Divine Judgment that awaits him, would definitively distance himself from those theologically erroneous positions – I am referring in particular to those in Introduction to Christianity – which are still disseminated today in universities and seminaries which boast to call themselves Catholic.”
Archbishop Viganò kindly responded to a set of questions that I, together with my husband Dr. Robert Hickson, presented to him in a published September 28, 2020 article. In our set of questions, we highlighted the close proximity between the July 23, 1967 Land O'Lakes statement of leaders of U.S. Catholic educational institutions who declared their independence from the Church's magisterial authority and the abandonment of the 1967 Oath Against Modernism only a few days earlier.
We had also reviewed aspects of a new biogaphy of Pope Benedict XVI, in which its author, Peter Seewald, showed the crucial role of then-Joseph Ratzinger at the Second Vatican Council's reform and change of spirit. Thus, we had asked Archbishop Viganò whether then-Professor Ratzinger not effectively perjured himself, since he himself also had taken previously the Oath Against Modernism.
In a wide-ranging response, Archbishop Viganò not only covers the history of the 1910 Oath Against Modernism and its abrogation and replacement by another formula of profession of faith, but he also discusses the influence of Jacques Maritain upon Pope Paul VI, the Gramscian-Communist method of cultural infiltration and subversion of the Catholic Church, and the person of Joseph Ratzinger as such.
First, the Italian prelate honors the Oath Against Modernism, which was demeaned as a sort of “a climate of witch-hunting,” but which “unquestionably had the merit of flushing out the enemies of the Church who lurked within her,” he explains. “If we think of heresy as a pestilence that afflicts the ecclesial body,” Viganò continues, “we ought to recognize that Saint Pius X acted with the wisdom of a doctor in eradicating the disease and isolating those who contributed to its spread.”
But with the 1967 abandonment of the Oath Aginst Modernism, as well as the Index of prohibited books the year before, the Church abandoned her combat against heresy in the Church. Here, Archbishop Viganò refers to one of the founders of the Communist Party in Italy, Antonio Gramsci, and his method of a cultural revolution that takes over a culture and with it the minds of the people. He states: “If we apply Gramsci’s recommendations to what has happened in the heart of the Church in the last century, we can see that the work of conquering the ecclesiastical 'casemates' was conducted with the same subversive methods; certainly the infiltration of the deep state into civil institutions and of the deep church into Catholic institutions corresponds to this criterion.”
The prelate reminds us that “all the bishops who participated in the Second Vatican Council and all the clerics with positions in the commissions swore the Iusiurandum Antimodernisticum together with the Professio Fidei.” That means that “those who at the Council rejected the preparatory schemas prepared by the Holy Office and played a decisive role in the drafting of the most controversial texts violated their oath sworn on the Holy Gospels.”
Furthermore, explains the Italian prelate, the abolition of the Oath Against Modernism “was part of a plan to dismantle the disciplinary structure of the Church, precisely at the moment in which the threat of the adulteration of Faith and Morals by the Innovators was greatest.” The abolition of this Oath “deprived the Hierarchy of the disciplinary means with which to guard and defend itself,” and therefore it “was a desertion, a betrayal of unheard gravity, especially in those terrible years: as if in the middle of full combat the commander-in-chief ordered his men to lay their arms down before the enemy just as they were getting ready to invade the Citadel.”
Viganò goes on to discuss also the crucial role of then-Professor Joseph Ratzinger who, as peritus of Cardinal Josef Frings, was deeply involved in the changes that were worked out at the Council. Referring back to the protective discipline established by Pope Saint Pius X, the prelate points out that they were also applied to Ratzinger who in 1955 “himself was accused of Modernism by the assistant supervisor of his dissertation for his teaching habilitation, Professor Michael Schmaus, against his colleague Gottlieb Söhngen, who shared the opposite approach with Ratzinger. The young theologian had to correct his dissertation in the points in which it insinuated a subjectivization of the concept of Revelation.”
Viganò goes on to state: “It is obvious that Joseph Ratzinger is to be counted among those who swore the Oath; that he “played a crucial role in overturning the preparatory schemas of the Council and initiating a completely new approach,” and that in doing so he violated the Oath, is equally indisputable. Whether in doing this Ratzinger had full knowledge of committing sacrilege, only God knows, who scrutinizes the depths of the heart.”
While we do not know Ratzinger's heart at the time and today, Viganò faces the fact that Ratzinger's own writings have been influenced by Modernist thoughts: “It also seems to me undeniable that there are many of his writings in which both his Hegelian formation as well as the influence of Modernism emerge, as Professor Enrico Maria Radaelli has illustrated very well in his essays and as the new biography of Pope Benedict XVI by Peter Seewald confirms with an abundance of particulars and numerous sources.” In light of these facts, for the Italian prelate it seems “obvious that the declarations of the young Joseph Ratzinger reported by Seewald largely contradict the hermeneutic of continuity which Benedict XVI later theorized, perhaps as a prudent retraction of his former enthusiasm.” (See here an analysis of Ratzinger's role at the Second Vatican Council as described by Peter Seewald.)
Ratzinger, in Viganò's eyes, seems to have changed his heart during his ecclesiastical career, “his role as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith,” and “his election to the Throne” having contributed “to at least some sort of a change of heart about the mistakes he committed and the ideas he professed.” However, Viganò still hopes that Ratzinger “above all in consideration of the Divine Judgment that awaits him, would definitively distance himself from those theologically erroneous positions – I am referring in particular to those in Introduction to Christianity – which are still disseminated today in universities and seminaries which boast to call themselves Catholic. Delicta juventutis meae et ignorantias meas ne memineris Domine (Ps 25: 7).”
This new statement by Archbishop Viganò is of great historical and moral worth and hopefully will help many Catholics to understand more deeply the history of Modernism and the Church's abandonment of resisting it, with major Modernist thinkers becoming the leading figures and inspirations of the modern hierarchy.
Please see here Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò's full statement:
After I turned away, I repented;
When you made me understand, I beat my breast;
I am ashamed and confused,
because I carry the infamy of my youth.
In an article that appeared on LifeSiteNews last September 28, Dr. Maike Hickson asked me some questions to supplement my statements concerning the Second Vatican Council reported by Marco Tosatti.
THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
The points made in this analysis refer to the Oath against Modernism, which Saint Pius X promulgated with the Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum of September 1, 1910, three years after the publication of the Decree Lamentabili and the Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis. Article VI of Pascendi established the institution, “as soon as possible [quanto prima]” of a vigilance commission in every diocese, while article VII ordered that a “diligent and sworn statement” be sent “to the Holy See” within a year, and then every three years after that, on the implementation of the prescriptions of the Encyclical and “on the doctrines that run among the clergy,” later simply known as the “Pascendi report.”
It will be noted that the Holy See had a quite different approach to the very serious doctrinal crisis of those years, as compared to the totally opposite approach adopted after the end of the pontificate of Pius XII.
The Innovators complained about what they called “a climate of witch-hunting,” but which unquestionably had the merit of flushing out the enemies of the Church who lurked within her, by means of an action of control and prevention. If we think of heresy as a pestilence that afflicts the ecclesial body, we ought to recognize that Saint Pius X acted with the wisdom of a doctor in eradicating the disease and isolating those who contributed to its spread.
THE ABOLITION OF THE OATH AND INDEX
In taking up the ideological link that I had highlighted between the Council and the Land O’Lakes Statement of July 23, 1967, Maike and Robert Hickson opportunely pointed out another interesting “coincidence”: the abolition, on July 17, 1967, of the obligation for all clerics to swear the Oath against Modernism which had been prescribed up until that time. An abolition that passed almost in silence, by means of replacing the preceding formula – which called for the Professio Fidei and the Jusjurandum Antimodernisticum – with the Nicene Creed and this brief phrase:
Firmiter quoque amplector et retineo omnia et singula quae circa doctrinam de fide et moribus ab Ecclesia, sive solemni iudicio definita sive ordinario magisterio adserta ac declarata sunt, prout ab ipsa proponuntur, praesertim ea quae respiciunt mysterium sanctae Ecclesiae Christi, eiusque Sacramenta et Missae Sacrificium atque Primatum Romani Pontificis. [I also firmly embrace and hold each and every thing which has been set forth and declared by the Church regarding the doctrine of the faith and morals, whether by a solemnly defined judgment or by the ordinary magisterium, especially those things which have reference to the holy Church of Christ, her Sacraments and the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.]
The explanatory note of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated: “Formula deinceps adhibenda in casibus in quibus iure praescribitur Professio Fidei, loco formulae Tridentinae et iuramenti antimodernistici [Henceforth this formula is to be used in cases in which the law prescribes the Profession of Faith, in place of the Tridentine formula and the Oath against Modernism].”
It should be noted that this innovation followed the abolition of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, which took place on February 4, 1966, after Paul VI redefined the competencies and structure of the Congregation on December 7, 1965, and changed the ancient name of the Holy Office to its present name, with the Motu Proprio Integrae Servandae:
But, because there is no fear in love (1 Jn 4:18), the defense of the faith is now better served by promoting doctrine, in such a way that, while errors stand corrected and those who err are gently called back to the truth, heralds of the Gospel may find new strength. Moreover, the advance of human culture, whose importance the religious field must not overlook, is that the faithful follow the directives of the Church with greater adhesion and love, if, insofar as in matters of faith and morals it is possible to make clear to them the reasons for definitions and laws.
The abolition of the Iusiurandum Antimodernisticum was part of a plan to dismantle the disciplinary structure of the Church, precisely at the moment in which the threat of the adulteration of Faith and Morals by the Innovators was greatest. This operation confirms the intention of those who, in the face of the ultra-progressive attack initiated at the Council, not only allowed the enemy to have freedom of action but also deprived the Hierarchy of the disciplinary means with which to guard and defend itself. And it was a desertion, a betrayal of unheard gravity, especially in those terrible years: as if in the middle of full combat the commander-in-chief ordered his men to lay their arms down before the enemy just as they were getting ready to invade the Citadel.
THE INADEQUACY OF THE NEW FORMULA
The inadequacy of the 1967 formula was also admitted by Father Umberto Betti, O.F.M., in the Doctrinal Considerations which appeared in 1989 after the promulgation of the new formula of the Profession of Faith:
This all-encompassing affirmation, if commendable for its brevity, was not immune to a two-fold disadvantage: that of not clearly distinguishing the truths proposed for belief as divinely revealed from those proposed in a definitive way even though not divinely revealed; and that of passing over in silence the teachings of the supreme magisterium which do not have the connotation of the divinely revealed or the definitive proposition.
It seems to understand that the solicitude of the Congregation was motivated by the necessity of including in the Oath of Fidelity both the Council itself and the Magisterium that does not have “the connotation of the divinely revealed or the definitive proposition,” after which with lightness – on the wave of the conciliar dismantling – the first formula had substantially allowed it to be understood that the content of the Oath against Modernism no longer had any value, and that therefore one could adhere – as effectively happened – to the heterodox doctrines of Modernism.
THE REBELS MAKE THE APPLICATIONS OF COMMUNISM THEIR OWN
I cannot affirm with certainty that Father Theodore M. Hesburgh was aware of the imminent abolition of the Professio Fidei and the Oath against Modernism when he prepared the Land O’ Lakes Statement. Nonetheless, I believe it is evident that the climate of rebellion of those years in Europe and the United States largely contributed to the belief that Rome approved, if not the most scandalous excesses, certainly the forms of compromise with progressivism.
I recall that Cardinal Alfrink, on October 9, 1966, had presented the Dutch “New Catechism” in Utrecht, as an expression of all the errors that the spirit of the Council considered by then to have been established. The following year, on October 10, 1967, during the Third World Congress for the apostolate of lay people reunited in Rome, the death of Ernest Che Guevara was commemorated after he had died the previous day in a guerrilla action. In the following months there followed the violent student occupations of the universities, including the Catholic University of Milan, in protest against the Vietnam War. And on December 5, 1967, thanks to the offices of [Secretary of State] Agostino Casaroli, the president of the student body of the Catholic University of Milan, Nello Canalini, was received in audience by the Substitute of the Secretary of State, Msgr. Giovanni Benelli. On December 21, 1967, despite the appeals of their Order, three priests and a sister joined the guerrillas in Guatemala, and two days later, on the occasion of the visit of President Lyndon Johnson to the Vatican, there were protests from progressive Catholics, including the Maritain Circle of Rimini. There followed the condemnation of the Vietnam War by Cardinal Lercaro (January 1, 1968) and the anti-imperialist proclamation of Fidel Castro, written by four priests. On January 31, 1968, the Brazilian bishop Jorge Marcos defended the revolution during a television interview. On February 16, 1968, the national presidents of FUCI [Italian Catholic Federation of University Students], Mirella Gallinaro and Giovanni Benzoni, sent an open letter to the university professors in which they laid out the reasons for the student protest. From that point on, the protests multiplied, including violent ones, giving rise to the sadly famous “1968 Movement” [in which all Italian universities were occupied]. No wonder: Che Guevara was formed in a Jesuit College in Santiago, Cuba, and the revolution in the political sphere always proceeds from a revolution in the theological sphere.
THE SURRENDER OF THE HIERARCHY TO SUBVERSION
It is obvious that the political climate of those years was the breeding ground of the Revolution, and equally evident that the Church did not react with the firmness and determination that would have been necessary; moreover, even on the part of national governments the response was entirely ineffective. It is therefore understood that the climate of rebellion in which the heretical instances of Catholic progressivism could not fail to involve the self-styled intellectuals and theologians both of Land O’Lakes as well as of many universities throughout the world. The hierarchy, instead of asking itself about the cause of such agitations, clumsily sought merely to deplore the excesses, precisely because the cause lay in Vatican II and in its protesting thrust, despite the proclamation of Paul VI:
After the Council the Church enjoyed, and still is enjoying, a great and magnificent awakening, which we are the first to be pleased to recognize and favor; but the Church has also suffered and still suffers from a whirlwind of ideas and facts, which are certainly not according to the good Spirit and do not promise that vital renewal which the Council has promised and promoted. An idea of double effect has also made its way into certain Catholic circles: the idea of change, which for some has replaced the idea of aggiornamento, foreshadowed by Pope John of venerable memory, thus attributing, against the evidence and against justice, to that most faithful Pastor of the Church criteria that are no longer innovative, but at times even subversive of the teaching and discipline of the Church herself.
These “criteria that are no longer innovative, but at times even subversive of the teaching and discipline of the Church herself” are today right before our eyes, and they were there just a few years later, when the new Mass was imposed on the entire Christian people, the summa of subversion in the liturgical sphere.
I recall very well the climate of those years, and the dismay of so many pastors, professors, and theologians in the face of the arrogance of the rebels and the violence of their supporters. But I also recall the timidity and fear of fueling the clashes: the fruit of that sense of inferiority which had afflicted above all the highest levels of both Church and State. On the other hand, after the operation undertaken by Roncalli and Montini to dismantle the solemn and sacerdotal nature of the pontificate of Pius XII, that feeling of failure was the only response on the part of an episcopate habituated to blind obedience, especially in the face of the impunity enjoyed by their brother bishops who were Modernists. It was the era in which the Benedictine abbot of Michaelsberg (Germany) asked for reduction to the lay state in order to protest against the “authoritarian methods” of the Vatican, and ended up getting married shortly thereafter. It was the era of the Letter of the Seven Hundred, in which 774 French priests and laity wrote to Paul VI to challenge the positions of the hierarchy, asking it to renounce temporal power and be closer to the poor. Today these seven hundred insurrectionists would carry Bergoglio in triumph, who has brought to completion what the Council suddenly began.
THE “CASEMATES” IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL SPHERE
On the eve of ’68, cancelling the Professio Fidei and the Oath against Modernism was an unfortunate decision, because, like the storming of the Bastille, it was prepared in the secret meetings of the Masons, and thus the Revolution of 1968 found its ideological base in the Catholic universities and formed its most excited protagonists there, some of whom were political exponents of the extreme left. Not asking the professors of these universities and the chaplains of the lay associations to swear the Oath was the equivalent of authorizing them to transmit their heterodox ideas, suggesting that the condemnation of Modernism had fallen. This allowed the Innovators to take power, according to the methods analyzed by Antonio Gramsci, who identified in the apparatus of the State – schools, parties, trade unions, the press, associations – the “casemates” of the enemy to be conquered in a parallel action to the war in the trenches.
In this regard, Alexander Höbel notes in one of his essays on Gramsci, a founding philosopher of the Communist Party of Italy:
[The communist party], before taking political power, must fight for hegemony in civil society, which means hegemony on the ideological and cultural level, but which also means conquering – during a long “war of position” which alternates in phases with a “war of movement” – the “casemates” – the trenches, the myriad small and large centers of popular power (or resistance) which are the trade unions, the cooperatives, the local governments, the associations, and the entire network of structures that make our civil society today immensely more complex than that of Gramsci’s time. It is in the course of this process that the subordinate class “becomes a historical subject,” a class for itself; it thus becomes the ruling class and lays the foundations also to become the dominant class; that is, conquering political power on the basis of consensus and mass sharing, an expression of a new “historical block.” In this hegemonic battle the proletariat not only constructs a politics of alliances, but it brings to the light of the political conscience those changes that have already happened on the structural level, of the development of productive forces, making clear that political and social transformation is also not only possible but necessary. In this context, it is clear that in the approach with respect to potential allies “the only concrete possibility is compromise, since force can be used against enemies, not against a part of oneself that wants to quickly assimilate.”
If we apply Gramsci’s recommendations to what has happened in the heart of the Church in the last century, we can see that the work of conquering the ecclesiastical “casemates” was conducted with the same subversive methods; certainly the infiltration of the deep state into civil institutions and of the deep church into Catholic institutions corresponds to this criterion.
THE EXEMPTION FROM THE OATH FOR GERMAN UNIVERSITIES
With regard to the exemption from the Oath for the Catholic departments at German universities at the time of Saint Pius X, I seem to understand – from the documentation I consulted – that this derogation was not actually granted but rather was de facto extorted against the wishes of the Holy See, thanks to the indulgence of certain members of the German episcopate. Cardinal Walter Brandmüller has highlighted the consequences of this exemption on the theological school in Germany. For my part, I limit myself to noting that they are evident in the formation of Joseph Ratzinger, who attended the Higher Institute of Philosophy and Theology of Freising, the Herzogliches Georgianum Seminary of Munich in Bavaria, and Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich. In addition, the Jesuit Karl Rahner, among others, was formed in Germany: his curriculum earned him an appointment as peritus at the Council on the initiative of John XXIII, who was a friend of the Modernist Ernesto Buonaiuti.
In this regard it is interesting to note what Professor Claus Arnold has observed in his study The Reception of the Encyclical Pascendi in Germany:
From an overall investigation, it can be reconstructed that the encyclical Pascendi was implemented only in a very approximative way, at least according to the standards of a regular centralized bureaucracy. From this perspective, one recognizes a high level of indolence and episcopal resistance, also in Germany. Pius X had every reason to be disappointed: the suspected secret sect of the Modernists within the Church could not be discovered by the bishops, and the anti-Modernist Oath of 1910 can be seen as an expression of dissatisfaction over this episcopal blindness. However, the high level of deviation from the reporting obligation and the responses of the bishops that were often formalized and of an interpretative immunization should not lead us to undervalue the effect of the encyclical.
Certainly the discipline then in force both in the Roman Dicasteries as well as in the Dioceses of the world prevented the complete boycott of the provisions providentially imparted by Saint Pius X. So much so that in 1955 Joseph Ratzinger himself was accused of Modernism by the assistant supervisor of his dissertation for his teaching habilitation, Professor Michael Schmaus, against his colleague Gottlieb Söhngen, who shared the opposite approach with Ratzinger. The young theologian had to correct his dissertation in the points in which it insinuated a subjectivization of the concept of Revelation.
THE OATH AT THE COUNCIL
I confirm that, according to the canonical norms then in vigor, all the bishops who participated in the Second Vatican Council and all the clerics with positions in the commissions swore the Iusiurandum Antimodernisticum together with the Professio Fidei. Certainly those who at the Council rejected the preparatory schemas prepared by the Holy Office and played a decisive role in the drafting of the most controversial texts violated their oath sworn on the Holy Gospels; but I do not think that for them this posed a serious problem of conscience.
THE CREDO OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD
The Credo of the People of God pronounced by Paul VI on June 30, 1968, in the Cappella Papale which concluded the Year of Faith was supposed to represent the response of the Apostolic See to the mounting wave of doctrinal and moral contestation; we know that it was strongly recommended by certain cardinals. Jacques Maritain collaborated in its drafting, who through Cardinal Charles Journet was received in audience by Paul VI between 1967 and 1968 and submitted a draft for a Profession of Faith that would in some way oppose the heretical Dutch Catechism which had just been published and was being examined during those months by a commission of cardinals which included Journet. Prior to this, also at the request of Paul VI, another profession of faith was prepared by the Dominican Yves Congar, which was rejected. But there is another detail:
...in one section, Maritain had explicitly mentioned the common testimony that Israelites and Muslims give to the unity of God together with Christians. In his Creed, however, Paul VI gives thanks to the divine goodness for the “many believers” who share with Christians faith in the one God, but without explicitly mentioning Judaism and Islam.
We thus discover that, if it were not for the providential revision of the Holy Office, the Credo would have introduced the doctrine of Nostra Ætate which was later taken up by the Successors of Montini and which with Bergoglio has met its coherent expression in the Abu Dhabi Declaration.
THE ABDICATION OF APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY
And here we discover another punctum dolens of the way of acting that united Maritain and Montini:
In the introduction to the text prepared at Journet’s request, Maritain added some suggestions regarding method. According to Maritain, it was opportune that the Pope would use a new procedure, confessing his profession of faith as a pure and simple witness: “The testimony of our faith, this is what we want to bear before God and men.” According to Maritain, the pure and simple “confessio fidei” would better help the multitude of troubled souls, without having to present the profession of faith as a mere act of authority: “If the Pope were to have the air of prescribing or imposing his profession of faith in the name of his magisterium, either he would have to speak the whole truth, thereby raising storms, or he would have to use consideration, avoiding dealing with the most dangerously threatened points, and this would be the worst thing of all.” The most efficacious and necessary thing was to confess clearly and strongly the integrity of the faith of the Church, without anathematizing anyone.
Saying the whole truth, according to Maritain, would have raised storms. The alternative, namely using consideration, “avoiding dealing with the most dangerously threatened points,” had already been adopted by the Council. Thus, once again, compromise was chosen. Mediocritas was erected as a method of governance in the Church, the sum total of the new merely propositional magisterium that avoided “any allusion to the anathematic form. But in the name of the one who presently occupies the Chair of the Apostle Peter. So that all ambiguities will be excluded.” The Holy Office also added an interesting comment that we can re-evaluate today, especially after Fratelli Tutti:
According to Duroux, the clarification should also be added that when the Church deals with temporal questions she does not aim at establishing a paradise on earth, but simply at rendering the present condition of men less inhuman. An insertion that would serve to clear the field of ambiguous interpretations regarding the positions taken by large ecclesial sectors, especially in Latin America in the face of political and social injustice.
With that profession of faith, “without being a dogmatic definition properly so-called, and albeit with some development, required by the spiritual conditions of our time, there was an attempt to have the Pope say what the Council had been silent about: it will be noted that the text of the Credo contains 15 citations from Lumen Gentium, while it mentions the acts of the preceding infallible Magisterium 16 times, however only giving the reference number in Denzinger.
In any case, this Profession of Faith was never adopted along with the Oath, and served more to silence the exasperated souls of pastors and the faithful rather than to lead rebels back to Catholic orthodoxy.
I would like to point out another element present in Maritain’s declarations that should not be underestimated: “If the Pope were to have the air of prescribing or imposing his profession of faith in the name of his magisterium...” Here is the main point on which the whole question hinges: the abdication of authority on the part of authority itself. According to this approach, the pope must not give even the impression of prescribing or imposing anything, and if per accidens Paul VI did so, today we find ourselves in the situation that the French thinker hoped for fifty years ago: certainly Bergoglio does not have the air “of prescribing or imposing his profession of faith in the name of his magisterium,” and the use of “consideration, avoiding dealing with the most dangerously threatened points” has now changed into a blatant and brazen affirmation of a counter-magisterium which, despite being canonically devoid of any apostolic authority, nevertheless has the explosive power of the words of him whom the world recognizes as the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, the Roman Pontiff. Thus, despite not having the air of doing so, Jorge Mario Bergoglio exploits his authority and the visibility that the mainstream media give him to demolish the Church of Christ. And if error can assert itself with impunity “without anathematizing anyone,” the “anathematic form” is widely used against those who defend Catholic orthodoxy or denounce the fraud in progress. It goes without saying that the use of “consideration, avoiding dealing with the most dangerously threatened points” today includes not only doctrinal aspects, but also moral ones, supporting the very serious deviations in the area of gender theory, homosexuality, trans-sexualism, and cohabitation.
RATZINGER AND THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
It is obvious that Joseph Ratzinger is to be counted among those who swore the Oath; that he “played a crucial role in overturning the preparatory schemas of the Council and initiating a completely new approach,” and that in doing so he violated the Oath, is equally indisputable. Whether in doing this Ratzinger had full knowledge of committing sacrilege, only God knows, who scrutinizes the depths of the heart.
It also seems to me undeniable that there are many of his writings in which both his Hegelian formation as well as the influence of Modernism emerge, as Professor Enrico Maria Radaelli has illustrated very well in his essays and as the new biography of Pope Benedict XVI by Peter Seewald confirms with an abundance of particulars and numerous sources. In this regard, I believe it is obvious that the declarations of the young Joseph Ratzinger reported by Seewald largely contradict the hermeneutic of continuity which Benedict XVI later theorized, perhaps as a prudent retraction of his former enthusiasm.
I think, however, that the passage of time, his role as Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and finally his election to the Throne have contributed to at least some sort of a change of heart about the mistakes he committed and the ideas he professed. It would, however, be desirable that he, above all in consideration of the Divine Judgment that awaits him, would definitively distance himself from those theologically erroneous positions – I am referring in particular to those in Introduction to Christianity – which are still disseminated today in universities and seminaries which boast to call themselves Catholic. Delicta juventutis meae et ignorantias meas ne memineris Domine (Ps 25: 7).
+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop
7 December 2020
S. Ambrosii Episcopi et Confessoris
 Saint Pius X, Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, quo quaedam statuuntur leges ad Modernismi periculum propulsandum, 1 September 1910. Note that the Holy See publishes this document on its website only in the Latin text, without translation into any current language, unlike all other recent texts.
 Cf. La Civiltà Cattolica, 1907, 4, 106: “We will and ordain that the Bishops of all dioceses, a year after the publication of these letters and every three years thenceforward, furnish the Holy See with a diligent and sworn report on all the prescriptions contained in them, and on the doctrines that find currency among the clergy, and especially in the seminaries and other Catholic institutions, and We impose the like obligation on the Generals of Religious Orders with regard to those under them” (art. VII of Encyclical Pascendi). See in this regard: Alejandro M. Dieguez, Tra competenze e procedure: la gestione dell’operazione, in The Reception and Application of the Encyclical Pascendi, Studi di Storia 3, edited by Claus Arnold and Giovanni Vian, Edizioni Ca’ Foscari, 2017.
 Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Given Motu Proprio Integrae Servandae, 7 December 1965.
 Doctrinal considerations on the Profession of Faith and the Oath of Fidelity, in Notitiae 25 (1989) 321-325.
 Translator’s note: A casemate is a fortified position on a warship from which guns are fired, from the Old Italian casamatta.
 Cf. A. Gramsci, Quaderni del carcere, edited by V. Gerratana, Turin, Einaudi, 1975, pp. 1566-1567.
 Cf. Alexander Höbel, Gramsci e l’egemonia. Complessità e trasformazione sociale.
 La Civiltà Cattolica, year 65, 1914, vol. 2, La parola del Papa e i suoi pervertitori, p. 641-650. In relation to the speech of Pius X at the Consistory of May 27, 1914, (AAS, 28 May 1914, year VI, vol. VI, n. 8, pp. 260-262): “The Pope here refers to the Oath against Modernism, which about five years ago was to be imposed on the professors of theology of the universities of the Empire” (p. 648). The passage of the speech of Pius X to the Consistory is this: “If you ever encounter those who boast of being believers, devoted to the Pope, and who want to be Catholic but would consider it the utmost insult to be called “clerical,” tell them solemnly that devoted sons of the Pope are those who obey his word and follow him in everything, and not those who study the means to evade his orders or to obligate him with insistence worthy of a better cause to grant exemptions and dispensations that are all the more painful the more they are harmful and scandalous.” On May 30, 1914, L’Osservatore Romano responded with a note: “We have seen that some newspapers, commenting on the speech the Holy Father gave on Wednesday to the new cardinals, have insinuated either to confuse ideas and disturb souls, or for other reasons, that His Holiness, speaking of harmful exemptions or dispensations which they insist on obtaining from him, was alluding to the Oath against Modernism in Germany. This is completely false, and it seems to us that the misunderstanding in this regard should not be possible. The only passage in that speech that refers specifically to Germany, even if not exclusively so, is the part about mixed associations, and in it the Pope only confirmed once again the principles which he laid out in the Encyclical Singulari Quadam.”
 “In a global survey it can be reconstructed that the encyclical Pascendi was implemented very inchoately, at least according to the standards of a centralized bureaucratic rule. In this perspective, a high degree of episcopal indolence and resistance can be acknowledged, even in Germany. Pius X had every reason to be disappointed: the suspected secret sect of the Modernists within the Church could not be uncovered by the bishops, and the Oath against Modernism of 1910 can be seen as an expression of dissatisfaction with this episcopal blindness. However, the high deviance from the reporting requirement and the often formalized and interpretative-immunizing responses of the bishops should not lead us to underestimate the effect of the encyclical” (p. 87). See Claus Arnold, The Reception of the Encyclical Pascendi in Germany (Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Germany), in The Reception and Application of the Encyclical Pascendi, Studi di Storia 3, edited by Claus Arnold and Giovanni Vian, Edizioni Ca’ Foscari, 2017, p. 75 ff.
 “For Schmaus the faith of the Church was communicated with definitive, static concepts which define perennial truths. For Söhngen the faith was mystery and was communicated in a story. At that time there was much talk of the history of salvation. There was a dynamic factor, which also guaranteed an openness and a taking into consideration of new questions.” Interview with Alfred Läpple of Gianni Valente and Pierluca Azzaro, Quel nuovo inizio che fiorì tra le macerie, in 30 Giorni, 01/02, 2006.
 Sandro Magister notes: In the 1950s, Maritain was close to being condemned by the Holy Office for his philosophical thought, which was suspected of “integral naturalism.” The condemnation was not carried out, in part because he was defended by Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Paul VI, who at the time was the Substitute of the Secretariat of State and was tied to the French thinker by a long friendship.” Ibid.
 So the Dominican Benoît Duroux suggested on April 6, 1968, who at the time was a collaborator of the secretary of the former Holy Office, Msgr. Paul Philippe. Ibid.
 “We are aware of the restlessness that agitates some modern environments in relation to faith. They do not escape the influence of a world in profound transformation, in which such a large number of certainties are challenged or questioned. We also see Catholics who allow themselves to be seized by a kind of passion for change and novelty.” Ibid.
Episodes Wed Jan 6, 2021 - 9:18 pm EST
EXCLUSIVE: Man who entered Capitol tells his story to LifeSiteNews
Leo Kelly was one of the first men to breach the Capitol building and go inside with dozens of others. In this exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews correspondent Jim Hale, Leo talks about his conflicted feelings about what he did, and why he felt it was necessary.
Episodes Wed Jan 6, 2021 - 6:45 pm EST
EXCLUSIVE: Police tear gas Trump protestors at US Capitol
LifeSiteNews Correspondent Jim Hale was on the scene, capturing video of the tense moments when protestors breached the Capitol and were then tear gassed by police and the National Guard.
Episodes Wed Jan 6, 2021 - 5:20 pm EST
Malcom Muggeridge witnessed firsthand the evils of Communism: biographer
In these week's episode of The Van Maren Show, Jonathon is joined by Gregory Wolfe, the biographer of famed 20th century British writer Malcolm Muggeridge, a one-time supporter of communism.
Episodes Wed Jan 6, 2021 - 11:42 am EST
Massive crowds demand justice For Trump in DC
At least a million Trump supporters poured into the nation's capital on Wednesday to dispute the results of the Presidential Election. LifeSiteNews Correspondent Jim Hale has been in the middle of it all day.