Coronavirus – Political? Really? OR…Conspiracy Theorists Out in Force? 

Christopher Ferrara, Fatima Center, writes…

It should have been no surprise to learn that, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, “Democrats are about twice as likely as Republicans to say the coronavirus poses an imminent threat to the United States… And more Democrats than Republicans say they are taking steps to be prepared, including washing their hands more often or limiting their travel plans.”

The political divide over the media-fanned hysteria surrounding COVID-19, shorthand for “coronavirus disease – 2019” (the year in which this particular strain of coronavirus first appeared), reflects prudent skepticism on the part of Republicans. They understand, if only intuitively, that the outbreak of this particular coronavirus — which is only part of the family of coronaviruses that includes the common cold — is being weaponized by the mass media and their partners in the Democrat Party in yet another attempt to bring down the Trump presidency. By provoking mass panic, economic slowdown, and a collapse in the stock market during an election year, the Democrat-Media alliance aims to assist the presidential campaign of Joe Biden, a clearly befuddled, 77-year-old washed-up political hack, who can barely utter two coherent sentences in a row.

Playing on the ignorance and gullibility of the masses, the media trumpet the “rising death toll” from “the coronavirus” — as if there were only one such virus in the world — which now stands at 26 people in the United States, 19 of whom resided in the same elderly living center in the State of Washington. Never mentioned are the 17,000 people who have already died from the common flu during the current flu season, or the annual death toll from the flu, ranging from 12,000 to 60,000 since 2010.

The following information from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) should suffice to show that the effort to depict this virus as a world-threatening plague is but the latest hoax perpetrated by an utterly reckless mainstream media establishment whose one and only story line these days seems to be “Surely, this will be the end of Trump!” Quoth the CDC: “influenza has resulted in between 9 million – 45 million illnesses, between 140,000 – 810,000 hospitalizations and between 12,000 – 61,000 deaths annually since 2010.” Moreover, for the 2019-2020 flu season the CDC has predicted “34,000,000 – 49,000,000 flu illnesses, 16,000,000 – 23,000,000 flu medical visits, 350,000 – 620,000 flu hospitalizations and 20,000 – 52,000 flu deaths.”

That’s in the United States alone. Worldwide, the death toll from influenza averages 646,000 deaths per year.

We have heard quite enough about the 26 U.S. deaths from COVID-19. Let Dr. Drew Pinsky lay this nonsense to rest in the video seen here. The press, he says, “must be held accountable” for the panic it has caused over what is essentially a small addition to an already bad flu season.
Seizing on the panic, Democrat Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA) has declared that Trump must cancel his rallies on account of COVID-19. She made no such demand, however, as to rallies for Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. And there we have it: the first political virus in world history. It affects only Republican activity!

Now, given the patently leftist orientation of the current pontificate, it likewise should come as no surprise that the Italian bishops and the Vatican have decreed — believe it or not — a total suspension of Masses throughout all of Italy until at least April 3. This aligns with the diktat of Italy’s President Conte that the entire Italian nation is under quarantine and travel restrictions, including the absurd requirement that all cafes, pubs, bars and restaurants close at dusk to avoid “night life” that would supposedly spread a virus no worse than the flu that is being treated as if it were the bubonic plague.

Yet, while the Vatican and the Italian bishops suspend all Masses — which could be offered for an end to the outbreak — even under Conte’s draconian restrictions “‘the markets, shopping centers, and sports centers remain open,’ under certain conditions,” observes the website of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). So, in Italy the wheels of commerce grind on while the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is prohibited. “This fact,” says the SSPX, “sadly underlines the quasi-religious place of the body in our modern society, which supplants spirit and religion. Whereas it would be necessary ‘to implore the Divine Mercy to shorten the tribulation and to bring the Christian people and their authorities back to the true goal for which each man was created, Heavenly Bliss.’ Triumphant secularism has plunged our societies into a forgetfulness of God and Italy is no exception.”

But it is not “triumphant secularism” that has placed a ban on Masses in Italy; it is the triumphant modernism of liberalized Catholic churchmen, the Pope included. Tellingly, however, the bishops of Poland have not only rejected the panic fomented by the media and civil authorities but have called for more Sunday Masses during the outbreak. Archbishop Stanisław Gądecki of Poznań, President of the Polish bishops’ conference, has declared as follows: “In connection with the recommendations of the Chief Sanitary Inspector that there should be no large gatherings of people, I ask to increase – as far as possible – the number of Sunday Masses in churches so that a number of believers can attend the liturgy … according to the guidelines of the sanitary services… [I]t is unthinkable that we do not pray in our churches.”

Here we can see that the political divide over COVID-19 is reflected also in a spiritual divide within the Church: On the one hand, worldly, left-leaning hierarchs more concerned with CO2 emissions than with the salvation of souls and, on the other, bishops who reject leftist politics and still give primacy to the spiritual, including (to quote the SSPX again) “the Divine Mercy to shorten the tribulation and to bring the Christian people and their authorities back to the true goal for which each man was created, Heavenly Bliss.”

Consider the divide over the first political virus in world history yet another sign of the current unparalleled crisis in the Church. And in the world.

Comment: 

Does Christopher Ferrara have a point?  IS this virus nicely timed to bring down Donald Trump – after all, the gaffe-ridden Joe Biden has about as much chance of beating him in the next election as the rest of us have of, well, making it to the  White House ourselves 😀

Or is this just one more conspiracy theory? Fun while it lasts, but no real basis in fact?   If so, we need to redouble our prayers for an end to what is now officially a “pandemic” – a worldwide disease.  (The First Political Virus in World History, by Chris Ferrara source)

Our Lady of Lourdes, Health of the Sick,
pray for us!


USA: Pro-Abortion Politician Inspired By Pope Francis – God Help America! 

From the Remnant Newspaper (writing about the Democrat opposition candidate to Donald Trump in the forthcoming election in the USA,  Mr Bernie Sanders…)

Every now and again, Sanders the cold-blooded dictator peeks out from behind the philanthropic old socialist veneer, and in those moments he sounds like this:

“The idea that women in this country should not be able to control their own bodies is beyond belief. They have that constitutional right. So if you’re asking me, would I ever appoint a Supreme Court justice who does not believe in defending Roe versus Wade, who does not believe that a woman has the right to control her own body, I will never do that.” (Source: Meet the Press 2019 interview of 2020 presidential hopefuls)

It’s also hitting the news that Sanders is considering a list of potential executive orders to unilaterally enact on Day 1, should he win the election. Chief among these is to reverse Trump’s Mexico City policy while forcing Americans to fund providers of “abortion counseling” such as, obviously, Planned Parenthood.

The list of executive orders also includes gems like directing the Justice Department to legalize marijuana and declaring climate change a national emergency.

Feeling the Bern yet, America? He’s the Dems’ lead on the way to the primaries, and guess who inspires him?

You see how these two men just really care about poor people? Such humility and humanity, heading right out to those peripheries to help the marginalized! That must be why this rabid pro-abort is a big fan of Pope Francis… They’ve got a lot in common!

And I guess the “sick and corrupt society” Sanders mentions is you and me, right? With our obnoxious love of unborn babies and God-fearing methods of policing ourselves through Christian values and such.

Maybe there’s only one response for now: TRUMP 2020!   Source – The Remnant Newspaper

Comment:

No Catholic could, in good conscience, vote for Bernie Sanders – could they? 

World Leaders Mock Trump: Is There a Line Between Fun & Nasty Hypocrisy?

Comment: 

At a time when both politicians and royalty could use some good public relations activity, this – decidedly – is not it.  

The trouble with  politicians, royalty and the media is that they are out of step with ordinary public opinion.  In one TV discussion show/phone-in, for example, only one member of the panel expressed disgust at the above childish unkindness (which she described as bullying) whereas, just about every member of the public who phoned in, sided with her, not with the other panellists. 

Of course, Trump has brought it on himself.  He has openly criticised other nations for not paying their fair share into Nato, thus incurring the displeasure of the professional politicians. Why, then, be surprised that they gather round to gossip about him, like a cross between a bunch of teenagers and a branch of the Women’s Guild? 

If they really wanted a good topic for gossip, they should have done what real teens and real women would have done –  taken a long hard look at Princess Anne’s hairdo.  She’s “styled” (I use the term loosely) her hair like that for years, and – in my very humble, unprofessional opinion –  it looks more hideous with every passing year.   I’m sure she can be a very nice person (just not at that moment, at that reception, when she was obviously putting in her anti-Trump tuppence-worth of mockery) but her hair style just doesn’t cut it.  If you get my drift…  😀  

It strikes me as a very nasty conversation. Not funny.  Unkind.  As Christians, we need to reflect upon where that line is drawn: were they engaging in innocent banter, a bit of fun, or were they being a bunch of  two-faced hypocrites?  Oh, and before you accuse me of double standards,  my commentary on Princess Anne’s hair-style is intended to be helpful; it should be characterised as free advice from an amateur beautician/hairdresser (and you just need to look at me to see there is nothing in that description which offends against the Trades Description Act 😀 )   

US President’s UK Visit: Scotland’s Shameful Treatment of Donald Trump

Today’s news broadcasts are dominated by reports and commentary on Donald Trump’s visit to the UK.  He’s just arrived and seems to be making most of his journeys within the UK by air, to avoid the nasty protests being staged all over the place. Group-think means that Trump is universally hated here, with loud-mouths peddling the propaganda that he is a racist, misogynistic, you-name-it, who earlier today “ranted” at the Nato Summit.  Never mind that we saw his demeanour, heard his words at the Nato Summit and it was not remotely an angry rant. It was a measured, if outspoken, address to those sitting with him at table and the only  question of any importance is the one NOT addressed by the media hacks:  was he telling the truth?  Of course he was. America is paying much more than any other Nato member and he was doing what none of his predecessors had the bottle to do, calling it out.  

One other feature of today’s discussions is also utterly dishonest. The cost of policing the President’s visit has been rolled out over and over again to attack the decision to invite him in the first place. Never mind that the cost of policing is due to the insistence of the thousands of “peaceful protesters” (let’s review that after the event) who lack respect for the choice of the American people to elect their own President, and never mind, too that we are paying for unnecessary policing at all sorts of events week in and week out, with not a peep of protest from anyone. 

For example, here in Glasgow, there are marches and “charity” runs regularly, if not every week through the city centre on Sundays; one of our readers used to board a bus to go into town to Mass but she never knew which church she would end up attending, all depending on the route for this week’s march, demonstration, “charity” run, whatever.   Then, too, there are the regular Orange Parades and the “Gay Pride” marches – how much do all of these events cost to police? 

So, enough of the bigotry and anti-Trump prejudice currently engulfing the UK, including Scotland, about which the President speaks so warmly.  Makes me ashamed to be a Scot, watching and listening to the nastiness being hurled his way. 

Trump haters want him to stop undermining their work in murdering unborn babies; they want him to stop enforcing the law against illegal immigration.  In short, they want him to follow Scotland/UK’s lead in being a “modern, socially progressive, democratic nation.”   The first time I heard the word “progressive” it was an adjective to “cancer”.  The connection is still apt. 

We, at Catholic Truth, welcome President Trump to Scotland, not least because Our Lord warns us of the price we risk paying at our Judgment if we don’t: “I was a stranger, and you did not make me welcome…” Matthew 25:45-46

Catholic Social Teaching Supports Trump’s Challenges To the Media…


From
Crisis

It is not an overstatement to say that the time of the Trump presidency has been one of protracted struggle between the national administration and most of the media. To be sure, the press and the electronic media have faced off with presidential administrations for a long time. Actually, the press has had their political and ideological biases since the beginning of the Republic. After all, weren’t the Federalist Papers originally articles in newspapers that wanted to support the proposed U.S. Constitution and influence the crucial ratification debate in New York State? Don’t historians write about how “yellow journalism” helped lead to the Spanish-American War? Still, when one looks at the behavior of the media in recent decades, the argument can easily be made that as far as concerns political bias, lack of concern for fairness and objectivity, separating out reporting from commentary, a willingness to dig for the facts instead of just reporting what someone claims, journalistic professionalism, and even attention to whether something reported on actually even happened, we are at a historic low.

While Republicans have probably borne the brunt of harsh presidential media treatment since LBJ, the level of vituperativeness directed at Trump is perhaps unparalleled—even surpassing what Nixon, who was known for his long chilly relationship with the press, faced. Certainly, the media’s unremitting pounding of Trump, beginning even well before Inauguration Day, is unprecedented in these recent decades. Some might say that Trump has invited it, with many questions about his background before coming into office, the attention to the ongoing investigation of “collusion” with Russia during the campaign (although this may actually be an example of the “fake news” that the president criticizes), and Trump’s constant sniping at the media with his regular barrage of tweets. Still, it’s hard to make the case that the media has given any breathing room to Trump anywhere along the way.

Most people would probably say that a president is justified in calling out the media and challenging their misconduct. Other presidential administrations have done it, although probably not as regularly and publicly as this one—nor has the president himself usually been the point man, as is the case with Trump. Despite plenty of grounds to challenge the media, Trump was recently attacked in a manner that surely seemed “over the top” by two senators from his own party. Senator Jeff Flake, who has repeatedly tussled with Trump, first conceded that presidents can surely criticize the press but then equated Trump’s actions with Stalin and seemed to suggest that the media can almost unquestionably be relied upon to present the truth. Flake’s fellow Arizonan, Senator John McCain, who has also had a strained relationship with the president, wrote an op-ed arguing that Trump’s criticism of the press is having the dangerous effect of discrediting it and so was emboldening foreign despots to suppress journalists.

All the while, Trump has not threatened the press with anything like censorship, or prior restraint as in the Pentagon Papers case, or imposing a special tax on oppositional newspapers like Huey Long did, or imprisoning journalists as various judges have done for not revealing their sources. Neither senator had much to say about journalistic responsibility or about whether the media—and what we’re mostly talking about here is the mainstream or “big” media—has in fact been discrediting itself by its actions, the most egregious of which has been reporting on stories that have no factual basis (“fake news”).

One wonders if the senators have any sense about the need to confront adversaries, even when they royally deserve it. Their response to Trump was a particularly striking example of what the Republican “establishment” in Washington has been consistently criticized for: routinely conceding to the other side, a “go-along, get-along” attitude that results in the left advancing its agenda even when it loses elections.

The strikingly uncritical and almost apologetic attitude about the media of Senators Flake and McCain is not something that Catholics should countenance, whether or not they like Trump’s approach or manner—that is, if they think he doesn’t act in a way that is “presidential”—or even if they think he carries it too far. Untruthfulness and wrongdoing—and imperviousness to propounding untruth certainly qualifies as wrongdoing—need to be challenged. Let’s remember how Christ had little reluctance about confronting the errant Jewish authorities of his time and that admonishing the sinner is a spiritual work of mercy. It’s especially necessary for top leadership to do it—both for the greater effect they can have and to inspire others to do the same in their own little arenas. Recall what St. Thomas Aquinas said about how those who rule set the norms for their people.

Moreover, when we talk about the media and calling it to responsibility, Catholics need to be particularly attentive to what the Church has said about this. In his social encyclical, Pacem in Terris, Pope St. John XXIII set out his famous listing of human rights and stressed that rights always have corresponding duties. So, while there is a right to express and communicate one’s opinions, to freedom of speech and publication—which certainly includes people acting in the context of the formal organs of communication, like the news media—the people on the receiving end have “the right to be informed truthfully about public events” (#12).

Vatican II’s Inter Mirifica (The Decree on the Means of Social Communication) stresses that while the media has rights it also has the duty to uphold the moral law, which certainly includes the obligation to report truthfully so that this right of people, the citizenry, to be truthfully informed is realized. It also asserts that civil authorities have a duty “to ensure … that public morality and social progress are not greatly endangered through misuse of these media” (#11-12). The Church here is not saying that government should or that it’s desirable for it to impose censorship, or even that it’s mostly government that should be the vehicle to promote this grave journalistic responsibility. She just says that government has or may have a role of some kind in this. That, of course, may involve nothing more than “setting the record straight” or challenging the media when it puts out false or biased information.

Recently, Pope Francis scored the media’s reporting of “fake news,” saying it always has bad effects, and emphasized the obligation of journalists to report the truth.
From a Catholic standpoint, then, while Trump’s confronting the media about ideological bias, reporting “fake news,” and the like may not be elegant and may even seem excessive sometimes, it is warranted as a means of prodding then to act rightly and be more responsible. As such, it certainly may help the cause of promoting the common good. While scrutiny and challenges of the media’s errant practices should come from many sources, to be sure, when the highest American public authority is willing to take it on it especially highlights the problems and may have the most effect. Again, as St. Thomas said, rulers or leaders shape the course of things. Further, the way Trump is doing it is entirely in line with American constitutional principles. Contrary to what Senators Flake and McCain may think, the First Amendment is in no way being trodden upon. [Stephen M. Krason: A Catholic Reaction to Trump and the Media]

Comments invited…  

Hurricanes Divine Judgment on President Trump’s Disbelief in Global Warming?

 Comment:

There’s certainly a school of  belief that God does sometimes express his wrath through natural disasters, and there are biblical verses to quote: “The LORD Almighty will come with thunder and earthquake and great noise, with whirlwind and tempest and flames of a devouring fire.”  (Isaiah 29:6)

But as a punishment for not believing a scientific theory? C’mon! 

As we reflect on the significance – if any – of these terrible hurricanes, let us remember two things; firstly, of course, to pray for the poor people suffering, at this time, and secondly, one thing that has not made (and is unlikely to make) the anti-Trump broadcasting news here in the UK  – that President Trump donated one million dollars of his personal money to the people of Texas and Louisiana.  

Over to you – are these hurricanes a punishment for not “believing in” global warming?