Featured Image

PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus! Sign the petition here.

June 9, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Before being elected president in 2008, Barack Obama stated the following: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” 

Some theorized that one of the planned transformations included suppression of Christianity and implementation of society-destroying socialist ideologies. He was then elected president by, presumably, many people with a similar mindset; some of those people remained in government jobs, including public health jobs, until the present time. They are sometimes referred to as the “Washington Establishment” or “the Establishment.” 

Now, consider this: if the opportunity arose for such persons to fundamentally transform America by destroying or greatly limiting the Catholic Church, American sports entertainment, and the American economy in general, would they take advantage of the situation to fulfill the transformation?

Some may feel self-conscious for asking such questions − or asking similar questions like whether Establishment-type public health officials, mainstream media, or other entities are being honest with information on COVID-19, “social distancing,” and the draconian lockdowns. When criticized or challenged, certain individuals often attempt to silence opposition by shaming and name-calling the criticizer a conspiracy theorist.

That should not be the case. It is routine for scientists and health care professionals to critically evaluate what is put forward as scientific evidence. It would be ideal if researchers or public health officials were always trustworthy, completely honest, or without error regarding the safety and efficacy of a treatment or non-pharmacological intervention (like state-wide lockdowns), but that is not always the case. 

Medical professionals, particularly those that specialize in drug information or medical information, routinely evaluate medical literature for faulty clinical study design, erroneous conclusions, fraudulent or fabricated data, conflicts of interest (like the potential to make trillions of dollars off of a vaccine), and what some broadly label as medical or scientific misconduct. Scientific misconduct typically involves deception; and while identifying and correcting scientific misconduct is a “most unfortunate process,” it must be done. One of the beginning steps of such efforts involves “theory.” Theories often need to be published for wide distribution so other researchers or theorizers may be able to provide evidence in support of or in opposition to proposed theories.

For example, when the COVID-19 discussions began, multiple people published the theory that public health officials and the mainstream media were propagating potentially unscientific, false, and/or misleading statistics. Soon thereafter, the theory was proven to be correct; if multiple people had not first questioned, theorized, and published their theories, such very important information may have never been brought to light. 

Another theory is in regards to public health officials’ potential plans for forced or ordered vaccinations in the U.S. There is evidence that the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has considered forced drugging or forced vaccinations as a part of their discussion on social distancing and the “legal preparedness for pandemic influenza” or other infectious disease outbreak (Page 31).

Do you want to be forcibly drugged or forcibly vaccinated by a group of “experts” that recklessly over-projected the severity of COVID-19, and recklessly under-estimated the harm − or side-effects − that could be done by lockdowns? Perhaps this is another theory that should be looked into further? Notably, some of the powerful individuals pushing for SARS-CoV-2 vaccines may profit from them; they also continually report doom-and-gloom and terror-causing information, almost as if to attempt to sway Americans into thinking their only hope of survival is a vaccine.

Just as one should be on guard for medical deception and cunning, so too should the Christian be on the lookout for potential persecution disguised as something else. Jesus says to “beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” 

“Ravenous wolves” are vicious and destructive creatures, yet, according to Jesus, they can appear in society and government as friendly and neighborly persons. His words, at least in part, mean that one must be aware of various types of cunning and deception from some claiming to be allies, help, or harmless acquaintances. There are numerous other similar warnings in the Word of God, but one in particular is from Psalm 94. The psalmist warns about corrupt political entities who “do injustice under cover of law”; or, as it is now stated in secular law, the deprivation of rights often occurs “under color of the law.” 

Many are familiar with the politicization of psychology and psychiatry, two specific types of health and/or medicine that in many respects do not adhere to scientific evidence. Falsification of information in psychology and psychiatry resulted in, among other things, a redefinition of marriage law which will ultimately result in persecution and deprivation of the rights of Christians. 

The introduction with examples is necessary to explain that it is normal to be on the lookout for potential medical or scientific misconduct and fraud, and it is normal for Catholics to be on the lookout for looming persecution under the guise of something else.

Recently, significant evidence surfaced supporting the suggestion that some will attempt to suppress Christianity under the guise of protecting “public health” or “public safety” from the spread of viruses. The evidence is from a court opinion in which the Federal District Court in Chicago refused to block the restrictions on religion imposed by the governor of Illinois due to COVID-19. The opinion states:

Over one hundred years ago the Supreme Court established a framework governing the emergency exercise of state authority during a public health crisis. The “liberty secured by the Constitution … does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint.” … “Even liberty itself, the greatest right, is not unrestricted license to act according to one’s will.”…“[A] community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.” As the Court explained, “[t]he possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order, and morals of the community.” (Page 4, citations omitted)

The opinion continues by quoting the same case from the year 1905 which supported forced vaccinations:

In every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the public may demand. (Page 5)

Then quoting another case, the opinion states, “‘the sad reality is that places where people congregate, like churches, often act as vectors for the disease,’”, and concludes in the following manner:

Plaintiffs’ request for an injunction, and their blatant refusal to follow the mandates of the Order are both ill-founded and selfish. An injunction would risk the lives of plaintiffs’ congregants, as well as the lives of their family members, friends, co-workers and other members of their communities with whom they come in contact. Their interest in communal services cannot and does not outweigh the health and safety of the public. (Page 11)

Ultimately, the opinion became moot after the Governor of Illinois withdrew the original restrictions. Still, the draconian reasoning used in the opinion is worth commenting on briefly.

First, the opinion is in part based on false statements like “COVID-19 threatens the lives of the citizens of Illinois and all Americans” and “Illinois has experienced … more than 3,600 deaths from the COVID-19 virus.” In fact, 80% of all persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 may not even notice it; and many others that do experience symptoms only experience very mild symptoms similar to the common cold. That means that the coronavirus does not “threaten the lives of…all Americans” as the opinion wrongly states.

Additionally, the opinion is incorrect on other matters, including the number of people who have died from COVID-19. Illinois’ own Public Health Director, Dr. Ngozi Ezike, has reportedly stated that persons listed as Covid-19 deaths did not necessarily die from Covid-19:

“I just want to be clear in terms of the definition of people dying of COVID,” said Dr. Ezike. “So, the case definition is very simplistic. It means at the time of death, it was a COVID-positive diagnosis. So that means that if you were in hospice and had already been given a few weeks to live and then you also were found to have COVID, that would be counted as a COVID death. It means that, technically even if you died of a clear alternate cause, but you had COVID at the same time, it’s still listed as a COVID death. So, everyone who is listed as a COVID death doesn’t mean that that was the cause of the death, but they had COVID at the time of death. I hope that’s helpful.” (Emphasis added.)

It is possible that the Federal Circuit Court Judge was unaware of those facts, but they are pertinent nonetheless. They are particularly relevant because when it is all said and done, the CDC has suggested that the fatality rate of COVID-19 may be close to that of influenza. The faulty and dangerous reasoning from the above opinion could then be applied every year during flu season. 

If, as the opinion states, “the sad reality is that places where people congregate, like churches, often act as vectors for the disease” and “interest in communal services cannot and does not outweigh the health and safety of the public,” and if a judge, public health official, or governor merely decides every year that influenza (or any other virus) “threatens the lives of all Americans,” then church gatherings (including the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) could be banned for six months per year or entirely, depending on how draconian a whimsical judge or governing entity decides.

One might respond by saying that all gatherings, including sporting events, would also have to be banned based on the faulty reasoning provided in the aforementioned opinion. If places where people congregate are merely “vectors for a disease,” then all congregations, including fans gathering for professional and college sports, would be banned. 

That would indeed follow from the faulty reasoned court opinion. American professional and college sports organizations should take notice of such opinions that could lead to drastic consequences. There are probably numerous powerful people who would ban both sports and religion in America and not think twice about it. One should notice that many of the consequences caused by public health officials’ and certain governors’ responses to COVID-19 have been the goal of America’s enemies for many years. 

That could be merely a coincidence; however, it is clear that certain entities have had to rely on false and misleading information, exaggerated projections and models of potential deaths which were sure to cause terror in Americans, and such persons also continue to ignore the fact that their lockdown approach to the virus may be having worse consequences than the virus itself. Scientists, governing entities, and public health officials with the genuine motives of protecting public health would be much more honest and straightforward than many have been over the last few months.

The above court opinion’s draconian reasoning is commonplace among the Washington Establishment, and use of such reasoning would fundamentally transform the United States of America; as of right now, America is fundamentally transformed from the way it was only two months ago. How much of the transformation is a result of opportunistic manipulation and deliberate terror-causing strategies from persons with ulterior motives? And is one of those motives the suppression of Christianity?