Posts Tagged ‘nancy pelosi’

Thus the word of the LORD came to me: Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel. When you hear a word from my mouth, you shall warn them for me.

If I say to the wicked man, You shall surely die; and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his wicked conduct so that he may live: that wicked man shall die for his sin, but I will hold you responsible for his death. If, on the other hand, you have warned the wicked man, yet he has not turned away from his evil nor from his wicked conduct, then he shall die for his sin, but you shall save your life.

If a virtuous man turns away from virtue and does wrong when I place a stumbling block before him, he shall die. He shall die for his sin, and his virtuous deeds shall not be remembered; but I will hold you responsible for his death if you did not warn him.

When, on the other hand, you have warned a virtuous man not to sin, and he has in fact not sinned, he shall surely live because of the warning, and you shall save your own life.

Ezekiel 3:17-21

If you really want to find out who is your friend, who actually loves you and wants the best for you. Find some who is willing to tell you an uncomfortable unpopular truth for your own good and risk getting pilloried for it.

That is the love that the Archbishop of San Francisco has for Nancy Pelosi

After numerous attempts to speak with her to help her understand the grave evil she is perpetrating, the scandal she is causing, and the danger to her own soul she is risking, I have determined that the point has come in which I must make a public declaration that she is not to be admitted to Holy Communion unless and until she publicly repudiate her support for abortion “rights” and confess and receive absolution for her cooperation in this evil in the sacrament of Penance.  I have accordingly sent her a Notification to this effect, which I have now made public.

Why is this important? St. Paul explains it in his 1st Letter to the Corinthians:

For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread, and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.  A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

1 Cor 11:23-29 Red indicates Christ’s words Emphasis mine

Ed Morrissey has thoughts about what this might mean:

But what about the USCCB and the Vatican? Cordileone doesn’t mention either of them in his letter, and it’s unclear whether he coordinated this decision with one, both, or neither. As prelate, Cordileone has the authority to make this decision, but Pope Francis has the authority to reassign Cordileone if he acts in a way contrary to the pontiff’s leadership, too. It will be quite interesting to see what actions Francis and the USCCB take in regard to this form of enforcement of doctrine and canon law [see update].

Equally interesting will be what happens the next time Pelosi goes for communion. Will the priests of the archdiocese comply and refuse her access to the Eucharist? They’d better or else they might find themselves in serious breach of their oath to faithfully serve their bishop, from whom their authority to act as priests originates.  Also, what happens when Pelosi goes to Mass elsewhere — especially in Washington DC? Technically, Cordileone’s writ only runs to the boundaries of the archdiocese. Will Cardinal Wilton Gregory honor that declaration?

What it actually means is this:

Archbishop Cordileone loves Nancy Pelosi so much that in an era where law enforcement looks the other way when it comes to people considered enemies of the left, to publicly warn the eighty two year old Nancy Pelosi about a grave danger to he soul in the hopes of saving it rather than seeing it condemned.

He actually believes and has the courage to act on that belief. The only question remaining is Does She?

I think those on the right who are celebrating the fall of the House of Cuomo both in NY & at CNN as a victory for us. I disagree, it’s not so much a victory as it is the embodiment of a basic truth of the left which is this: If you have power to aid and abet their cause of the left you will be protected by them & their media, academic and entertainment allies, but once you no longer have that power your usefulness is at an end and said protection is gone.

Cuomo’s fall, while satisfying simply means that they are no longer useful to the cause and thus are no longer guaranteed the protection or deference that the left’s institutions once provided. In fact the only protection they have is whatever knowledge they have of others on the left who have done as bad as them or worse.


Last month I was at lunch with my brothers who are both much more conservative than me (I’m practically the liberal of the group) and the subject of both Fauci & Pelosi came up.

While they despise them both with a passion they also noted that they were both very smart in the sense that while their actions have been detrimental to the nation they successfully used said actions to gain personal power, wealth and security.

These actions might be unethical, dishonest and dishonorable even to the point of being evil but given the end result for themselves were certainly not stupid, except of course in a theological sense.


Speaking of falls Charlie Baker AND Karen Politio have decided to call it quits not seeking a 3rd term as governor and Lt. Gov of Massachusetts.

There have been ups and downs. On the down side the pair are horrible on social issues, particularly abortion and their opposition to President Trump is why the left likes him as much as they do in the state. On the plus side Baker is an able and competent administrator and I suspect with some cause the reason while Massachusetts in general and Fitchburg in particular did not go the way of Kenosha or Minneapolis when BLM came calling was due to his quiet actions.

A lot of conservatives will not be sorry their gone, at least not until a completely woke Democrat gets the job and does their best to turn the state into California.


There is word that the Democrats will go all in on abortion for the midterms as the potential for SCOTUS reversing Roe seems good after oral arguments.

While I think it’s not wise to 2nd guess the court, particularly any court run by old yellowstain Justice Roberts it’s a most logical move on their part.

Of course all of this was inevitable because the future belong to those who show up and spending generation killing off your potential voters is not a long term plan for success.


Finally for the past month there has been a lot of speculation on dumping Kamala Harris.

I’m not buying any of it. Harris is in an elected not an appointed position and unless you have actual impeachable offenses and the willingness of the house and senate to remove her she’s not going anywhere. All this talk is just talk.

And seriously why would she resign? What is the actual gain for her? It’s not like everyone doesn’t already know how she got to where she is and frankly I don’t that there is anything hidden in her past that is more corrupt than what the Biden’s are openly doing.

Stealing the 2020 Presidential Election was a rousing success for the Democrats.  Because of that they are attempting to ensure that they will have an easy time stealing all future presidential elections.  Their first attempt, the For The People Act, failed a couple months ago.  They are at it again with the Voting Rights Advancement Act, which is a rather repulsive name for this partisan refuse.  The sole purpose of this law is to overturn and outlaw all attempts to secure federal elections through measures such as Voter ID laws and cleaning up voter registration roles.

I first learned about this craven attempt at election theft from this action alert from the Heritage Foundation Stop H.R. 4, a Federal Veto of State Election Laws

H.R. 4 is a Leftist scheme to give President Biden’s bureaucrats in the federal government VETO power over state election integrity laws. Biden’s politicized lawyers in the Justice Department would use this veto power to overturn state voting laws they politically disagree with, such as extremely popular voter ID laws.

H.R. 4 would accomplish this by altering and weaponizing the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 for the Left’s partisan political gain.

This is a dangerously effective tactic, because the Voting Rights Act is generally a good and popular law. By stealing its good name for their new bill and partisan power grab, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Schumer hope to gain mainstream America’s support by default.

It is exceedingly odious that this partisan nonsense invokes and changes the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because the original law:

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act made it illegal to deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race or color. Section 2 reinforces and strengthens the protections in the 15th amendment. And importantly, section 2 is still law (as it should be!).

When most people think of the VRA, section 2 is usually what they think of. With H.R. 4, Pelosi seeks to weaponize lesser known provisions of the VRA (sections 3, 4, and 5).

Here are the changes that this new legislation would make to the original Voting Rights Act.

H.R. 4 would change Section 3 to enact a fast and loose definition of discrimination. Under this new “disparate impact” definition, a voting law that applies to all equally, but potentially results in a statistical difference in impact, would now be in violation of the VRA. Under this loose definition, the federal government is given wide latitude to invalide state election laws without showing any actual intent to discriminate.

Furthermore, H.R. 4 would change the coverage formula for “preclearance” found in section 4, which determines which states the federal government essentially has veto power over. The power of preclearance is found in section 5 of the VRA, and it essentially creates a federal veto power over the election laws of certain states.

As you can see the whole notion of preclearence in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was  exploited by the Obama Administration to a overturn attempts to make elections more secure.  The Obama Administration’s abuse of preclearence was so over the top it was struck down by the Supreme Court.  This new legislation is just an end run around the Supreme Court

Preclearance is the process by which several states with a past history of voting rights violations were required by the VRA in the 1960’s to get pre-approval from the Department of Justice (DOJ) before they changed any state voting law.

Preclearance was originally supposed to expire after five years, but Congress extended it several times.

During the Obama years, Attorney General Eric Holder abused preclearance as a personal veto to stop states from passing common-sense voting reforms and lawsuits were filed challenging preclearance.

In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court found section 4 of the VRA unconstitutional. Because the formula for selecting states for preclearance had never been updated since the 1970’s, states were being continually punished for 50-year old mistakes that had been long rectified.

After Shelby County, Leftist partisans in the federal government no longer had veto power over state election laws, and states were able to pass many common-sense reforms, like voter ID.

The Federalist has come out swinging against this latest attempt by Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats to steal elections How H.R. 4 Would Let Leftist Extremists At The DOJ Control The Entire Nation’s Elections

Why are Democrats in Congress staging a series of show hearings to generate support for H.R. 4, “The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act”? Because, they claim, there is a wave of “voter suppression” going on across the country.

That is nothing more than a political fabrication. Requiring voters to show ID to authenticate their identity, or trying to ensure voter registration rolls are accurate and up-to-date, are not “voter suppression” and don’t prevent any eligible individual from registering and voting.

H.R. 4 isn’t just unnecessary and unjustified. It’s a dangerous bill that would give the partisan bureaucrats of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Justice Department administrative veto powers over states’ changes to election procedures.

As Cleta Mitchell noted in The Federalist earlier this month, H.R. 4 is “even more insidious” than its cousin, H.R. 1, precisely because “it would enable the vastly well-funded Democrat ‘voting rights’ apparatus to control American elections.” This control would extend over states’ election integrity measures like voter ID (even if passed by ballot referenda approved by all of the voters of a state).

By John Ruberry

Okay, I admit, the headline is provocative, and absolutely click-baity. But stay with me here. In two weeks the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump will begin. Presidents of course can be impeached by the House and removed from office for committing “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

There’s just one obvious problem here. On Wednesday Joe Biden was sworn in as Trump’s successor.

Last year on his Cabinet of Curiousities podcast Aaron Mahnke spoke of a “particularly dark and corrupt moment in the church’s past,” the Catholic church that is. That moment was the trial of Pope Formosus in 897.

The Holy Father was accused of a grab bag of crimes, including perjury, seeking to be the bishop of more than one jurisdiction, and coveting the papacy. Because he was unable to speak in his defense, a deacon was appointed for that task. Formosus was found guilty, he had three middle fingers cut off–the fingers used for blessings–and buried in an obscure cemetery not befitting the Bishop of Rome. His body was quickly exhumed and then dumped in the Tiber River.

If the prior paragraph doesn’t make complete sense it’s because Formosus, after a five-year papacy, died in 896. His successor was pope for just two weeks, the next pope was Stephen VI, an enemy of Formosus. He called for what historians label the cadaver synod. Stephen ordered the first exhumation of Formosus. His corpse was then dressed in papal robes, propped on a chair, and the conviction process began as there was certainly no doubt of the verdict, despite an earthquake during the trial that might have elicited a few doubts among Vatican officials.

Just as the guilty verdict of Formosus was set twelve centuries ago, so was the House of Representatives’ vote to impeach Trump a second time, just one week before the end of his term. Trump’s chances for an acquittal in the Senate are much better. In essence, the second impeachment process against Trump is his cadaver synod. It’s about making a political statement and playing to the base.

The justifications for the second impeachment from Democrats vary, but the primary goal seems to be preventing the former president from seeking another term in 2024. Another reason for impeaching and removing Trump from office, now moot, was that he possessed the nuclear strike codes. After the first Trump impeachment, House speaker Nancy Pelosi, knowing that the odds of the Senate voting to convict Trump were remote, called the lower chamber’s vote “an impeachment that will last forever.” Presumably this will be a second impeachment that will last forever. Oh, and it’s a splendid way for Pelosi and the Democrats to tar the Republican brand.

A third run for the White House, in my opinion, is unlikely for Trump. The former president will be 78 in 2024; yes, that is the same age as Biden, who is clearly an old 78. Three years is a long time for people in their 70s. And in the last 100 years no president who was defeated in a reelection attempt has tried to regain the White House. Only one, Gerald Ford, has seriously considered it. And Trump, again in my opinion, damaged his brand in the last weeks of his presidency by his slowness to condede defeat, his hostile phone call to the Georgia secretary of state asking him to change the election results there, and the riot at the Capitol–which by the way the president did not incite. And the riot, the destructive work of about 1,000 conspirary theorists and other screwballs, was not an insurrection. While Trump is a clearly a unique politician, political moods change. In 1980 Americans weren’t clamoring for Gerald Ford–they wanted Ronald Reagan.

The Trump cadaver synod is a two-minute hate for Democrat politicians and a way, perhaps for the final time, to fill their campaign funds in the name of Trump, and a hate that is being cheered on by the anti-Trump media, who will soon see a drop in readers and viewers now that their enemy is out of office.

In other words Impeachment Part Two is a waste of time.

As for Formosus, his body was recovered by a monk and buried–for the last time–in St Peter’s Basilica. His accuser, Stephen VI, was pope for little more than a year. After the cadaver synod Stephen was imprisoned and then strangled to death.

As for voters, a much more civil revenge will be to return the GOP to majorities in both houses of Congress.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.