Feeds

  1. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    Since the Council, an idea has been spreading that Judaism is not superseded by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ; that Jews still have available to them the Covenant of the old Law, by which they can be saved. It is therefore unnecessary for them to turn to Christ; unnecessary for anybody to convert them to faith in Christ. Indeed, attempting to do so is an act of aggression not dissimilar to theFr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com11
  2. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    S Paul loved his fellow Jews, his 'kinsmen' and believed "the gifts and call of God are irrevocable". He believed that at the End, those among them who had rejected Christ would be brought in to the chosen people. He believed that they were like olive branches which had been cut off so that the Gentiles, wild olive branches, could be grafted in. But, when the fulness of the Gentiles had entered Fr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com3
  3. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    Lex orandi lex credendi. I have been examining the Two Covenant Dogma: the fashionable error that God's First Covenant, with the Jews, is still fully and salvifically valid, so that the call to saving faith in Christ Jesus is not made to them. The 'New' Covenant, it is claimed, is now only for Gentiles. I want to draw attention at this point to the witness of the post-Conciliar Magisterium of theFr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com13
  4. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    We have seen that the Two Covenant Theory, the idea that Jewry alone is guaranteed Salvation without any need to convert to Christ, is repugnant to Scripture, to the Fathers, even to the post-Conciliar liturgy of the Catholic Church. It is also subversive of the basic grammar of the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments. Throughout  two millennia, in Scripture, in Liturgy, in her Fr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com7
  5. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    The sort of people who would violently reject the points I am making are the sort of people who would not be impressed by the the Council of Florence. So I am going to confine myself to the Magisterium from the time of Pius XII ... since it is increasingly coming to be realised that the continuum of processes which we associate with the Conciliar and post-Conciliar period was already in operationFr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com0
  6. Site: Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment
    0 sec ago
    In 1980, addressing a Jewish gathering in Germany, B John Paul II said (I extract this from a long sentence): " ... dialogue; that is, the meeting between the people of the Old Covenant (never revoked by God, cf Romans 11:29) and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time ..." In 2013, Pope Francis, in the course of his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii gaudium, also referred to the Old Fr John Hunwickehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17766211573399409633noreply@blogger.com10
  7. Site: Steyn Online
    0 sec ago
    For this week's live-music edition of Steyn's Song of the Week, Maria Muldaur temporarily abandons "Midnight at the Oasis" for a wild jungle ride:
  8. Site: Steyn Online
    0 sec ago
    We're honored to present a brand new live-performance edition, with a very brooding ballad from 12-time Grammy winner Cheryl Bentyne:
  9. Site: southern orders
    3 hours 18 min ago


    Our diocese videoed St. Anne's Great Vigil of Easter. It is a brief synopsis of it, but well edited!

    You can see it HERE.
  10. Site: LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH
    3 hours 40 min ago
    Author: noreply@blogger.com (Susan Matthiesen)
  11. Site: Fr. Z's Blog
    4 hours 29 min ago
    Author: frz@wdtprs.com (Fr. John Zuhlsdorf)

    From a reader…

    QUAERITUR:

    A 12 year old asks: Earth day is coming up and I have a question: Is being ecological a sin? She thinks is a sin because she thinks it is caring too much about the earth.

    GUEST PRIEST RESPONSE: Fr. T. Ferguson

    When I was in high school, I was part of a group that had the honor of going to a forensic tournament in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Seven of us, four boys and two girls travelled in a van down to Gatlinburg and stayed in a large motel with hundreds of other kids, mostly from the south. In the room two doors down from us there were kids from a public school in Kentucky. Their room became the “party room.” All in all, it was pretty tame – no drugs or alcohol, but lots of pop (soda, or coke depending on where you were from), pizza, chips, etc. Our rooms stayed pretty clean, because we spent our free time in the “party room.”

    Where are you going with this? You ask.

    I’m getting old. I’m now of an age where I almost HAVE to answer a question by telling a rambling story. Sit down, keep listening…

    When we got ready to leave, our teacher and chaperone learned of the party room. She demanded that we go help clean it up. “But,” we protested, “It’s not our room, and besides, it’s a motel. It doesn’t belong to us, and they have people that will come in tomorrow and clean it.” That didn’t matter, and that didn’t convince her. We still have to go help pick up the empty pizza boxes, vacuum, get the trash in bags and get it somewhat orderly. It was the right thing to do.

    This earth is not our home. We’re not meant to think of it in terms of permanence. In a way, it’s like a motel. We’re just passing through – our real home is elsewhere. That doesn’t mean that we should have no care or concern for this earth and the beautiful things God has given us here. It’s the right thing to do.

    If our concern for the environment reaches the level that we places creation above the Creator, if our concern for the environment compromises our obligations to each other and to the demands of natural and divine law, it can be sinful.

    If we start treating our transitory home like we’re meant to be here for all eternity, that can be sinful.

    If we do our best to limit our impact on our environment, if we choose to be careful and eat food grown on local, family farms instead of large farming corporations, if we lubricate our guns with sustainable linseed oil, and drink our martinis out of glass rather than plastic stemware, that’s not sinful. That’s just being respectful.

  12. Site: Gloria.tv
    4 hours 37 min ago
    Author: kimtaegon
    Look for the new vineyard
  13. Site: Community in Mission
    4 hours 56 min ago
    Author: Msgr. Charles Pope

    As the Easter Octave unfolds, we have in the Gospel this enigmatic statement of Our Lord Jesus to Mary Magdalene:

    Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, “I am ascending to My Father and your Father, to My God and your God” (John 20:17).

    There is much to ponder and distinguish here.

    First, we should set aside certain previous translations that rendered “Do not cling to me” as “Do not touch me.”

    The latter sounds almost rude. The Greek expression Μή μου ἅπτου (Me mou haptou) is best rendered, “Do not go on clinging to me” because haptou is a verb in the middle voice.

    The middle voice is one that English lacks. It is midway between the active and passive voices and indicates that the subject of the verb (in this case, Mary) both acts and is acted upon. Mary lays hold of the Lord but needs to do so because something is different. Something deeper is being shown to her and she is missing that. Mary actively sees Jesus but passively needs to receive something new about Him. This is the middle voice, containing elements of both the active and the passive.

    Further, as Strong’s Greek dictionary sets forth, ἅπτω (haptou) means “to fasten to,” “to adhere to,” or “to cling to.” What the Lord asks of Mary is that she not merely cling to what is familiar but step back and see what is new. Jesus is no longer a mere rabbi or teacher. He is not merely the Jesus she knew; He is Lord and He is risen.

    Second, we must ponder what Jesus means when He says that He is ascending.

    St. Thomas Aquinas summarizes St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom on the meaning of the Lord’s ascending:

    [Augustine says] “… Jesus would have us to believe in Him, i.e., to touch Him spiritually, as being Himself one with the Father. For to that man’s innermost perceptions He is, in some sort, ascended unto the Father, who has become so far proficient in Him, as to recognize in Him the equal with the Father … whereas she as yet believed in Him but carnally, since she wept for Him as for a man.” Or as Chrysostom says (Hom. lxxxvi in Joan.): “This woman wanted to converse with Christ just as before the Passion, and out of joy was thinking of nothing great, although Christ’s flesh had become much nobler by rising again.” And therefore He said: “I have not yet ascended to My Father”; as if to say: “Do not suppose I am leading an earthly life; for if you see Me upon earth, it is because I have not yet ascended to My Father, but I am going to ascend shortly.” Hence He goes on to say: “I ascend to My Father, and to your Father” (Summa Theologiae III, Q. 55, Art. 6, Reply to Obj. 3).

    In other words, Jesus’ ascent must take place in Mary (and in every other follower). He is far more than a man resuming mortal nature. He is more; He is Lord. We must come to see Him as Lord and God. He must ascend in our sight. We must see Him at a higher level and in a higher way. He is no mere sage or rabbi; He is Lord and God! He must ascend in this way, in our understanding.

    In Jesus’ public ministry, Mary had rightly reverenced Jesus as teacher and rabbi, but Jesus the Lord is doing more now than merely leading an earthly life and fitting into earthly categories.

    In effect, Jesus is saying to Mary, “Don’t go on clinging to what in Me is familiar to you. Step back, take a good look, and then go tell my brothers what you see.”

    When Mary Magdalene has done this, she runs to the apostles and says, “I have seen the LORD” (Jn 20:18). I show the word “LORD” in uppercase in this quote because up until this point, Mary used the word “Lord” as a title of human respect. She said, “They have taken my Lord and I don’t know where they have put Him.” Of course, one doesn’t take Him and put Him anywhere! He is LORD, and He does as He pleases. No longer clinging to Him in merely a familiar way, Mary now says, “I have seen the LORD,” meaning it in a plenary and divine sense.

    For Mary, the Lord is ascending. She is seeing Him in a higher way. The Lord has ascended for Mary Magdalene. Has He ascended for you?

    Finally, what of the Lord’s expression that He is ascending to “My Father and your Father, to My God and your God”?

    In English, we can use the word “and” in either an equivalent or a comparative sense. I could say to someone, “You are my brother and my friend.” This uses the “and of equivalence” because it indicates that you are both a brother and a friend to me in the same or in an equivalent way.

    Other uses of the word “and” indicate a more comparative sense. When we say that Jesus is Son of God and Son of Mary, we mean that He is the Son of His Father in a different way than He is Son of Mary. He is the Son of both but in very different ways. In the liturgy, when the priest says, “Pray, brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the almighty Father,” he indicates that while his sacrifice and the sacrifice of the people are both sacrifices, they are sacrifices in different ways. The priest acts in persona Christi capitis (in the person of Christ the head), while the faithful act as members of the body. Both are rightly called sacrifices, but they are so in different ways.

    Thus, when Jesus says that He is ascending to “My Father and your Father,” He does not use the “and of equivalence” but the “and of comparison.” As a man, Jesus can speak of God as His Father, but His human nature is hypostatically united to His divine nature as God, the Second Person of the Trinity. So, although God is our Father and Christ’s Father, He is Christ’s Father in a far richer and more profound way.

    Jesus says, “My God and your God” not by way of equivalence, but by way of comparison.

    In all these ways, the Lord Jesus must ascend in our understanding. He will do that provided we do not go on clinging to Him in a merely human and familiar way.

    Let the Lord ascend in your life.

    Cross-posted at the Catholic Standard: What Does Jesus Mean?

    The post What Does Jesus Mean When He Tells Mary Magdalene Not to Cling to Him Because He Has Not Yet Ascended? appeared first on Community in Mission.

  14. Site: Zero Hedge
    5 hours 21 min ago
    Author: Tyler Durden

    Just as US-North Korea nuclear negotiations have remained in a stalled low point, with North Korea's Leader Kim Jong Un days ago demanding that Secretary of State and former CIA chief, Mike Pompeo, should be replaced for any future negotiations with the US, the Kremlin has confirmed it's in the "final stages" of preparations to host Kim for talks with President Putin by the end of this month.  

    "Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un are on track to meet by the end of April," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed on Monday, according to Reuters. The summit was initially revealed last week, in a first such bilateral summit since Kim came to power in 2011

    Peskov stopped short of giving a precise date for the summit, but reaffirmed it will occur within the next week, in the remaining days of April. 

    "Indeed, the meeting is being prepared and the preparations have entered the final stage. The encounter will take place before the end of April," the Kremlin spokesman said.

    Though the precise venue has also yet to be revealed,  South Korea’s Yonhap news agency, hinted that the summit would place in Vladivostok in the Russian Far East.

    Kim Jong Un's first summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin could include a visit to a naval vessel of Russia's Pacific fleet, according to a Japanese press report.

    Kyodo News reported Monday Kim could also attend a performance of the Mariinsky Ballet and stop by the largest aquarium in the Russian Far East during the summit this week. Kim Chang Son, vice chairman of North Korea's state affairs commission, has been inspecting various sites, according to the report. — UPI

    Over the past year two summits between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, the first in June 2018 and the second in February 2019, have failed to reach an agreement over the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

    And now it appears Putin is prepared to step in and capitalize at a moment when Washington's engagement with Pyongyang is uncertain and in disarray. The question remains: can Putin unlock the stalled nuclear dialogue between the US and Pyongyang?

    There's another key factor to the timing of Kim's historic trip to Russia, as Asia Times notes: "News analysis of satellite imagery had indicated renewed activity at the Yongbyon nuclear facility, and then North Korea earlier this month tested its first new tactical guided weapon with a 'powerful warhead' signaling the onset of brinkmanship with Washington."

    Russia has long supported the lifting of North Korea sanctions, and thus Kim is expected to find a more sympathetic ear in Putin. 

  15. Site: Zero Hedge
    5 hours 41 min ago
    Author: Tyler Durden

    Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

    Once the global debt bomb explodes, there won’t be much left for anyone.  Governments will fall, individuals will be impoverished, and businesses will implode.  The elitists in power have tried to keep everyone in the dark, but maybe there’s an answer to this devastation.

    Global debt now stands at a terrifying $243 trillion according to a report by the Institute of International Finance this week. That’s quarter of a quadrillion. We’re in the realms of the absurd and the unsustainable. That’s money that will never be repaid. The debt-based system is irrevocably broken and is still propped up by the lies told by central bankers and governments in order to remain in positions of power over others.

    The record debt figure stands at three-times the world’s total gross domestic product (GDP). In other words, it’s three times larger than the value of all products and services on the planet.  And the United States is contributing massively to this problem, propping up a debt bubble that will crush everyone when it finally bursts. It’s pretty safe to say that if you aren’t concerned, you simply aren’t paying attention and will be hurt when it all collapses.

    An irresponsible monetary system addicted to printing money and issuing credit is destroying the standard of living almost everywhere on the planet. It’s time to admit that we, as human beings, need a new alternative to the control, wealth redistribution, theft, and slavery that’s overtaken humanity. And one website dares to say that while it’s far from perfect, bitcoin offers a viable solution with its fixed supply.

    According to CCN, Bitcoin, the decentralized cryptocurrency, is a way out of the poorly designed monetary system forced down all of our throats by power-hungry sociopaths. When economic growth is insufficient, governments and companies borrow more money.  But this is nothing more than a cycle of addiction, writes  John Mauldin inForbes:

    “This is classic addiction behavior. You have to keep raising the dose to get the same high… Central banks enable debt because they think it will generate economic growth. Sometimes it does. The problem is they create debt with little regard for how it will be used.”

    When the next global financial crisis occurs, and the world realizes organizations with $20 trillion in debt can't possibly ever pay it back, and thus must print it instead, and thus fiat is doomed... watch what happens to crypto.

    — Erik Voorhees (@ErikVoorhees) November 8, 2018

    Bitcoin could be the answer to a fiat currency because there is a fixed amount.  No one can magically print a bitcoin out of thin air. In our current fiat system, central banks create money in a process called quantitative easing. The central banks issue new money and use it to buy bonds and assets. This has the effect of introducing more money into supply, lowering the purchasing power of your money, and encouraging low-cost lending.

    The ONLY concern with Bitcoin, is that it only has value if someone wants it. It’s a commodity. If there’s any kind of ultimate cataclysmic event and no power grid to access your Bitcoin, it’s going be of no use.  If the system collapses and people begin to starve, they can’t eat a bitcoin any more than they could eat a bar of gold. That’s why diversification is key – and a point far too many tend to overlook.

    If investing in cryptocurrency makes sense for you, consider also storing some extra food, and maybe picking up some precious metals.  It’s almost impossible to tell what will happen exactly when the debt bubble explodes, and you may want to have several options at your disposal.  Expect the best, but prepare for the worst.  The more options you have in your arsenal, the better.

  16. Site: Ron Paul Institute - Featured Articles
    5 hours 50 min ago
    Author: Judi Yang


    Many of us do our part to help the environment. We recycle, we bike to work, and we buy less plastic. Yet tap water everywhere is still so filthy; the air, coastlines, parks, and lands are more and more polluted; and cancer continues to take the lives of millions of workers, young and old.

    Who’s to blame? Bottling companies? Chemicals corporations? These companies are very serious polluters, and should be held accountable. But most of all, blame the US Department of Defense.

    Pentagon is the biggest destroyer of all living things

    The Pentagon is by far the world’s largest polluter, producing more hazardous waste than any country, and more environmental poisons than the five largest US chemical companies combined. And they get away with it. They’re accountable to no one. Misnamed the Department of Defense, it really is the “the offender of all.”

    For three generations now, the US military has left its destructive legacy throughout the world not only through death and destruction but also through befouling the earth with depleted uranium, oil, jet fuel, pesticides, defoliants that cause birth defects such as Agent Orange used in Vietnam, and lead, among other poisons.

    The Pentagon does this with impunity. It putrefies with toxic materials where it makes nuclear and other bombs. It leaves nuclear and chemical waste behind, wherever it drop bombs, and wherever it makes them and tests them. It does this with no regard to the health of people abroad or in the US, and doesn’t even mind poisoning its own soldiers and their families.

    Seventy-five percent of Superfund sites were fouled by the Pentagon

    In 2014, the Department of Defense actually admitted it had contaminated 39,000 areas spreading across 19 million acres in the US alone. US military bases, at home and abroad, are among the most polluted places in the world.

    One might argue that all imperialist bases ooze toxins. But even if this is true, the US military’s environmental defilement still exceeds that of every other power. The Pentagon operates 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad. Britain, France and Russia combined have only 30 foreign bases.

    Seventy-five percent of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s list of Superfund sites, the most contaminated of all the sites, which qualify for clean-up grants from the government, were polluted by the Pentagon. Nine hundred of the 1,200 or so Superfund sites in the US are abandoned military facilities, or sites that otherwise support military needs, often left littered with rusty barrels of contaminates.

    Almost every military site in the US is seriously contaminated.

    In Hawai’i, the Pohakuloa military training camp is the US’s largest live-ammunition training base in the Pacific. Here soldiers engage in everything from sniper practice to throwing grenades and firing vehicle-borne armaments, torpedoes, mortars, artillery and other munitions. The people on the island have tirelessly demanded an end to military contamination and the destruction of their formerly pristine lands and drinking water.

    Military poisons its own soldiers

    Numerous military bases have also poisoned local drinking water. Military Times reported in April that the Pentagon had for the first time released a full study on military installations where it has found higher-than-recommended levels of cancer-causing perflourinated compounds―perfluorooctane sulfonate or perfluorooctanoic acid―in either the base water drinking systems or groundwater.

    Now, through an online registry, thousands of US soldiers and veterans, are reporting cancer among soldiers and their spouses, birth defects, and developmental disabilities among children raised on or near military bases.

    Fair Use Excerpt. Read the rest here.
  17. Site: Creative Minority Report
    5 hours 58 min ago
    Author: noreply@blogger.com (matthew archbold)

    The phrasing of statements from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton has raised the interest and ire of many Christians. In response to the Sri Lanka massacre that targeted Churches and hotels on Easter morning, the two of them, instead of saying the word “Christian,” referred to the victims as “Easter worshippers.”

    Please continue reading at The National Catholic Register>>>




  18. Site: Zero Hedge
    6 hours 1 min ago
    Author: Tyler Durden

    In another sign of strengthened ties and increased cooperation between the militaries of two countries which spent much of the 20th century as bitter rivals, Russian warships are taking part in China's 70th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy.

    The four-day showcase in naval power this week will also feature India and other regional navies, including Japan, Australia, and the Philippines. Crucially, the 70th anniversary exercise appears an occasion for Beijing to reassert its own vision of "freedom of navigation" and maritime security issues with "major naval leaders" from the region at a time when the US is challenging Chinese territorial claims in the South and East China Seas. 

    File photo of the People's Liberation Army Navy honor guard. Image source: VCG

    After the past year involving multiple incidents with US naval vessels and aircraft passing through contested areas, the PLA touted its non-threatening presence on the seas to enforce freedom of navigation as well as sovereign boundaries. 

    “With its growth, the PLA Navy has provided the world with more and more security products,” Chinese Navy deputy commander Qiu Yanpeng stated upon the opening of the naval exercise. "The PLA Navy is always a force of peace, and will never pose a threat to any other country.

    Qiu added that such international exercises "create opportunities for navy leaders of different countries to discuss maritime security cooperation."

    Beijing plans to showcase its newest vessels alongside other nations' advanced warships such as a stealth guided-missile destroyer of the Indian Navy, INS Kolkata, and the Russian Caliber cruise missile-equipped frigate, the Admiral Gorshkov.

    During the parade staged in Qingdao and its nearby sea areas and airspace, the vessels will sail in six groups: submarines, destroyers, frigates, landing ships, auxiliary ships, and aircraft carrier.

    The planes will fly in 10 echelons, showcasing aircraft for early warning, reconnaissance, anti-submarine patrol, as well as bombers, fighters, carrier-based fighters, and carrier-based helicopters. — Xinhua News

    In all, 32 Chinese warships are scheduled to participate, including the Liaoning aircraft carrier and nuclear subs. 

    Deepening Military-to-Military Relations.
    The Indian Navy’s frontline destroyer, INS Kolkata reached the Qingdao Port today to participate in the PLA Navy International Fleet Review. She is accompanied by the tanker INS #Shakti.
    Press Release: https://t.co/sHLTtZekYU@MEAIndia pic.twitter.com/JEyesKNj6Q

    — India in China (@EOIBeijing) April 21, 2019

    Dozens of more countries which are not directly participating in the naval exercises, are expected to send delegations to both observe PLA capabilities and engage with Chinese military leaders.

    In total some 60 countries are expected to be represented, with the main naval parades to take place on April 23, the day of the PLA's founding. 

  19. Site: Zero Hedge
    6 hours 21 min ago
    Author: Tyler Durden

    Authored by Adrian Zmudzinski via CoinTelegraph.com,

    Fundstrat Global Advisors founder Tom Lee pointed out that the value currently reported by his company’s bitcoin (BTC) sentiment indicator Bitcoin Misery Index (BMI) has never been seen in a bear market. Lee made his comments during an interview with Cointelegraph published on April 19.

    image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

    During the interview, Lee noted that through 2018, the BMI has not been over 50, while it now recently touched a value of 89. According to Lee, values over 67 have never taken place in a bear market.

    Lee concluded:

    “It means that a bull market is likely starting.”

    Still, he also explained that when the indicator reported such a high value, “six out of six times, there was a drawdown in the market.” Lee claims the drawdown averaged to 25% in such instances, and that in the short term, the market could see a headwind. Moreover, he also stated that this could also mean that investors could be moving their capital to altcoins instead.

    Lee also pointed out that bitcoin recently broke the 200-day moving average, which he believes means that bitcoin’s recovery is happening faster than they expected. This is in line with what he stated in mid-March, when Lee said that he thinks “the key number to watch is the 200-day moving average.”

    Lee noted that this breakout could also mean that this time, the recovery won’t be different than it has been in the past, and that bitcoin could easily recover to new highs. Still, when asked if new highs for the coin will be achieved this year, Lee answered that while he believes they will be reached, he does not know when.

    According to Lee, there are various reasons for the recent trend inversion in the crypto market. For instance, he mentioned that old and wealthy bitcoin wallets have recently started adding BTC, and that transaction activity has begun increasing along with crypto exchange volumes.

    As Cointelegraph reported in January, the number of active bitcoin wallets, many of which have long been dormant, has seen an uptick.

    Earlier this week, digital assets fund Adamant Capital published a report claiming that thecryptocurrency bear market is winding down and is in its final stage.

  20. Site: LifeSite News
    6 hours 33 min ago
    The hearing was 'vacated' by Judge Christopher Hite.
  21. Site: LifeNews
    6 hours 35 min ago
    Author: Dave Andrusko

    After having been rebuked on another of his abortion rulings, last Thursday a federal judge issued a partial injunction blocking Ohio’s ban on the dismemberment of living unborn babies from being implemented.

    “Senior U.S. District Judge Michael Barrett in Cincinnati ordered the state not to bring criminal charges against doctors who perform the D&E procedure until the case can be fully litigated,” The Associated Press’s Julie Carr Smyth reported. “Other parts of the law were allowed to proceed.”

    Mike Gonidakis, president of Ohio Right to Life, told Smyth, “This judge was just soundly rejected by the Sixth Circuit,” adding, “I am confident his actions today will be rejected yet again.”

    Mr. Gonidakis was referring to a decision by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upholding an Ohio law that made entities that perform or promote abortions, such as Planned Parenthood, ineligible to participate in six state-funded health programs. The 11-6 decision, written by Judge Jeffrey Sutton, overturned an April 2018 decision by a three-judge panel of the same circuit that had upheld a 2016 decision by Judge Barrett striking down the law.

    Smyth wrote, “In Thursday’s ruling, Barrett agreed with Planned Parenthood the law is likely to be declared unconstitutional because it places an undue burden on a ‘large fraction’ of Ohio women.” The law was to in effect Friday. Barrett’s order lasts 14 days.

    Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.

    As NRL News Today reported, former Gov. John Kasich signed the Dismemberment Abortion Ban in December 2018. S.B.145 enjoyed widespread support in the legislature– in the House (62-27] and the Senate (23-9).

    This law “would prohibit the barbaric dismemberment abortion procedure, in which an abortionist first dilates the woman’s cervix, and then uses steel instruments to dismember the living, unborn baby,” Gonidakis said, “It’s hard to imagine how Planned Parenthood could be in support of a procedure which allows living unborn babies to be ripped limb from limb.”

    Ohio is one of eleven states that ban this particularly barbaric abortion technique, In chronological order, the other ten are 1.) Kansas (2015) 2. Oklahoma (2015) 3. West Virginia (2016) 4. Mississippi (2016) 5. Alabama (2016) 6. Louisiana (2016) 7. Arkansas (2017) 8. Texas (2017) 9. Kentucky (2018) 10. North Dakota. For more detail, go the NRLC’s State Legislation page.

  22. Site: Zero Hedge
    6 hours 41 min ago
    Author: Tyler Durden

    Earlier this month, we reported that Textron Systems' AAI Corporation delivered its Next Generation Squad Weapon-Technology (NGSW-T) prototype demonstrator to the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC) Armaments Center and Joint Services Small Arms Program (JSSAP). A new report from Defense Blog shows the Army will purchase approximately 100,000 units of the next-generation weapon that fires 6.8-millimeter ammunition.

    Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Mark A. Milley on April 10 announced the Army would order 100,000 units, mainly purchased for infantry units which engage in close-quarters combat.

    U.S. Army Contracting Command (ACC) officials said the new weapons would include the Next Generation Squad Weapon-Rifle (NGSW-R) and the Next Generation Squad Weapon-Automatic Rifle (NGSW-AR).

    The NGSW-R is expected to replace the M16 rifle and M4 carbine. The NGSW-AR is also expected to replace the M249 light machine gun in the Automatic Rifleman Role in the Close Combat Force.

    The new rifles chamber a 6.8mm cartridge, known as the XM1186. The round has greater range, increased accuracy at longer distances, and better armor penetration capability than 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm ammunition. The 6.8mm round is expected to be the most advanced ammunition on the modern battlefield for the next 25 years.

    In October, the Army selected the 6.8mm as the official requirements for the NGSW. The new bullet is designed to penetrate the world's most advanced body armor at a range of up to 600 meters.

    "Moving from contract award to delivery of a revolutionary, next-generation weapon in just 15 months not only demonstrates the maturity of our Cased-Telescoped technology, but also the project execution excellence our team possesses to rapidly fill critical warfighter needs on schedule," said Textron Systems Senior Vice President of Applied Technologies & Advanced Programs Wayne Prender.

    "Our Cased-Telescoped weapons and ammunition offer the growth path to a true next-generation small arms weapon for U.S. warfighters, including increased lethality at longer ranges, while also delivering significant weight reductions to the warfighter."

    The Pentagon’s current shift from urban warfare in Iraq and Syria to the mountains and open terrain of Afghanistan have been the driving force behind modernizing standard issue weapons for infantry units. While standard rifles are well-suited for close combat in cities like Mosul and Raqqa, it lacks the range to kill adversaries in open stretches.

    The Army is expected to test AAI's NGSW weapon at firing ranges this summer. Full contract award could be upwards of 250,000 units and 150 million rounds. The expected field date is early 2020. 

  23. Site: LifeNews
    6 hours 48 min ago
    Author: Micaiah Bilger

    A black Democratic lawmaker from North Carolina said he will vote to override Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto of a bill to protect newborn babies from infanticide.

    State Rep. Garland Pierce was one of five Democrats who joined Republicans in voting for the state Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, the Laurinburg Exchange reports.

    State Senate Bill 359 would require abortion workers to provide the same level of medical care to an infant born alive from a botched abortion that they would any other infant born at the same gestational age. It also would require the infant to be transferred to a hospital for further care. Health workers also would be require to report these instances to authorities. Abortion workers who violate the measure could face felony charges.

    Cooper, a pro-abortion Democrat who has the support of Planned Parenthood, vetoed the bill last week.

    It is not clear if there are enough votes in the state legislature to override Cooper’s veto, but lawmakers are going to try.

    “And I’ll vote to override the governor’s veto,” Pierce said. “I just can’t vote against my conscience. Even if someone thinks there are already laws in place for protection, how could this bill hurt?”

    He said a vote likely will occur next week.

    “I do recognize women’s rights because I have a mother, a wife, a daughter and granddaughter,” Pierce told the local newspaper. “What decisions they make, I respect. For this (bill), I decided to side with the surviving baby. If a baby survives it has the right to medical attention.”

    The report listed state Sens. Ben Clark and Don Davis, and state Reps. Raymond Smith, Charles Graham and James Gailliard as the other Democrats who voted with Pierce in support of the bill.

    Pierce said the testimony of Jill Stanek was one of the things that prompted him to support the bill. A former nurse turned whistle-blower, Stanek said she saw her co-workers take a baby boy who survived an abortion to a utility room and leave him there to die.

    “I do not want to trample on women’s rights,” Pierce said. “What got my attention is that once the baby has gone through the trauma of abortion and lives, I believe it should get medical care like any living being at that point, and not be denied medical assistance on its journey to live.”

    The state Democratic Party, however, supported Cooper’s decision to veto the bill.

    SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you like this pro-life article, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

    Cooper criticized the bill as “unnecessary” and claimed it would “criminalize doctors for a practice that simply does not exist” in his veto message.

    During the House debate, however, state Rep. Pat McElraft, R-Emerald Isle, gave a powerful testimony about working as a phlebotomist and seeing newborns who survived abortions being abandoned to die in the hospital where she worked, according to North Carolina Health News.

    “I was on a break and went in to visit with the pathologist in the pathology lab and I asked him, I said, ‘What are all these little pigs doing in these buckets?’ He told me, ‘Pat, look again,’ and I did. They were perfectly formed little human babies in those buckets,” she said.

    McElraft said the incident occurred in the 1970s, soon after she began working in the medical field. She also said she knew of a doctor at the hospital who drowned newborns who survived abortions.

    Reports by the Centers for Disease Control indicate that there are infants born alive after botched abortions in the U.S. According to Congressional testimony:

    Data that the CDC collects also confirms babies are born alive after attempted abortions.  Between the years 2003 and 2014 there were somewhere between 376 and 588 infant deaths under the medical code P96.4 which keeps track of babies born alive after a “termination of pregnancy.”

    The CDC concluded that of the 588 babies, 143 were “definitively” born alive after an attempted abortion and they lived from minutes to one or more days, with 48% of the babies living between one to four hours.  It also admitted that it’s possible the number is an underestimate (B).

    Data from other countries suggest the same. In 2018, for example, the Canadian Institute of Health Information reported 766 late-term, live-birth abortions over a five-year period. In Western Australia, at least 27 babies survived abortions between 1999 and 2016, according to the state’s health minister.

    Currently, 19 states do not have laws requiring medical care for babies born alive after botched abortions, according to research by Americans United for Life. However, Kentucky and Texas lawmakers are considering similar legislation this spring.

    The state bills are similar to federal legislation that pro-abortion Democrats are blocking in the U.S. House and Senate. The Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act requires abortionists to provide the same level of medical care to an infant who survives an abortion as a doctor would to any other baby at the same stage of life.

    Some states never have passed laws to protect abortion survivors, while at least one other, New York, recently repealed its law requiring medical care for infants who survive abortions.

    ACTION: Contact North Carolina state lawmakers.

  24. Site: LifeNews
    6 hours 53 min ago
    Author: Steven Ertelt

    The Oregon House of Representatives today approved a bill that would make it easier to get away with euthanizing patients, especially elderly people.

    Monday morning, the Oregon House of Representatives passed House Bill 2217 down party lines. House Bill 2217 will increase the number of ways that the lethal drugs can be administered in physician-assisted suicide, including intravenously, via injection, or through a gas mask.

    “Oregon has a problem with elder abuse already,” said Lois Anderson, ORTL executive director. “House Bill 2217 places vulnerable Oregonians in even greater danger. There is already no safety net in the law ensuring lethal drugs are taken voluntarily.”

    “Today, the House voted to make it even easier for lethal drugs to be administered to vulnerable patients with no oversight,” continued Anderson. “Where there was a loophole, there can now be a highway leading Oregonians straight to euthanasia. This was nothing short of a dereliction of duty and reckless disregard for human life.”

    Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

    Prior to the vote, three representatives delivered three letters of opposition to every representative: one signed by a coalition of organizations, one by 34 medical professionals, and one by Dr. Richard Doerflinger, an expert on bioethics.

    “Let the record show that they were educated when they made this vote,” said Anderson. “They knew the risks for their constituents and still voted in favor of this dangerous piece of legislation.”

    For media inquiries or interviews, please contact Liberty Pike, ORTL communications director at 971-645-6585 or by replying to this email.

  25. Site: Zero Hedge
    7 hours 1 min ago
    Author: Tyler Durden

    Authored by Jim Quinn via The Burning Platform blog,

    The ruling oligarchs are running out of time.

    This teetering edifice of debt is going to collapse, and they know it.

    Those with cash and precious metals are enemies of the state at this point.

    They will be making an all-out effort to ban cash and force all transactions to be electronic. This will further enrich the banking cabal, as they get a hefty slice of every transaction.

    It will also allow the ruling class to inflict negative interest rates on savings to force you to spend.

    I don’t think there will be enough guillotines to dispense justice when the shit hits the fan.

    Cashing In: How to Make Negative Interest Rates Work

    By Ruchir Agarwal and Signe Krogstrup

    Many central banks reduced policy interest rates to zero during the global financial crisis to boost growth. Ten years later, interest rates remain low in most countries. While the global economy has been recovering, future downturns are inevitable. Severe recessions have historically required 3–6 percentage points cut in policy rates. If another crisis happens, few countries would have that kind of room for monetary policy to respond.

    To get around this problem, a recent IMF staff study shows how central banks can set up a system that would make deeply negative interest rates a feasible option.

    How low can you go?

    In a cashless world, there would be no lower bound on interest rates. A central bank could reduce the policy rate from, say, 2 percent to minus 4 percent to counter a severe recession. The interest rate cut would transmit to bank deposits, loans, and bonds. Without cash, depositors would have to pay the negative interest rate to keep their money with the bank, making consumption and investment more attractive. This would jolt lending, boost demand, and stimulate the economy.

    When cash is available, however, cutting rates significantly into negative territory becomes impossible. Cash has the same purchasing power as bank deposits, but at zero nominal interest. Moreover, it can be obtained in unlimited quantities in exchange for bank money. Therefore, instead of paying negative interest, one can simply hold cash at zero interest. Cash is a free option on zero interest, and acts as an interest rate floor.

    Because of this floor, central banks have resorted to unconventional monetary policy measures. The euro area, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, and other economies have allowed interest rates to go slightly below zero, which has been possible because taking out cash in large quantities is inconvenient and costly (for example, storage and insurance fees). These policies have helped boost demand, but they cannot fully make up for lost policy space when interest rates are very low.

    Breaking through zero

    One option to break through the zero lower bound would be to phase out cash. But that is not straightforward. Cash continues to play a significant role in payments in many countries. To get around this problem, in a recent IMF staff study and previous research, we examine a proposal for central banks to make cash as costly as bank deposits with negative interest rates, thereby making deeply negative interest rates feasible while preserving the role of cash.

    The proposal is for a central bank to divide the monetary base into two separate local currencies—cash and electronic money (e-money). E-money would be issued only electronically and would pay the policy rate of interest, and cash would have an exchange rate—the conversion rate—against e-money. This conversion rate is key to the proposal. When setting a negative interest rate on e-money, the central bank would let the conversion rate of cash in terms of e-money depreciate at the same rate as the negative interest rate on e-money. The value of cash would thereby fall in terms of e-money.

    To illustrate, suppose your bank announced a negative 3 percent interest rate on your bank deposit of 100 dollars today. Suppose also that the central bank announced that cash-dollars would now become a separate currency that would depreciate against e-dollars by 3 percent per year. The conversion rate of cash-dollars into e-dollars would hence change from 1 to 0.97 over the year. After a year, there would be 97 e-dollars left in your bank account. If you instead took out 100 cash-dollars today and kept it safe at home for a year, exchanging it into e-money after that year would also yield 97 e-dollars.

    At the same time, shops would start advertising prices in e-money and cash separately, just as shops in some small open economies already advertise prices both in domestic and in bordering foreign currencies. Cash would thereby be losing value both in terms of goods and in terms of e-money, and there would be no benefit to holding cash relative to bank deposits.

    This dual local currency system would allow the central bank to implement as negative an interest rate as necessary for countering a recession, without triggering any large-scale substitutions into cash.

    Pros and cons

    While a dual currency system challenges our preconceptions about money, countries could implement the idea with relatively small changes to central bank operating frameworks. In comparison to alternative proposals, it would have the advantage of completely freeing monetary policy from the zero lower bound. Its introduction would reconfirm the central bank’s commitment to the inflation target, rather than raise doubts about it.

    Still, implementing such a system is not without challenges. It would require important modifications of the financial and legal system. In particular, fundamental questions pertaining to monetary law would have to be addressed and consistency with the IMF’s legal framework would need to be ensured. Also, it would require an enormous communication effort.

    The pros and cons of the system are country specific and should be carefully compared to other proposals, such as higher inflation targets, for increasing monetary policy space in a low-interest environment. We consider these issues, and more, in our research.

  26. Site: RT - News
    7 hours 2 min ago
    Author: RT
    North Korean leader Kim Jong-un plans to visit Russia to meet with President Vladimir Putin “soon,” the North Korean Central News Agency has reported, in what would be the first meeting of the two heads of state.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  27. Site: Fr. Z's Blog
    7 hours 4 min ago
    Author: frz@wdtprs.com (Fr. John Zuhlsdorf)

    From a reader…

    QUAERITUR:

    Hi, Father.

    1) I keep thinking that I should receive the Eucharist on the tongue, but am running into barriers, [you mean… like dopey priests?] to include the following: a) “how” to actually receive on the tongue, if you can offer any “pointers”; b) feeling self-conscious; and c) the fact that I did receive on the tongue one time in recent memory and I think I forgot to say Amen, and the priest seemed displeased—so I feel a bit traumatized from that experience.

    Firstly, I am glad that you think you should receive Communion directly on the tongue.  So should everyone.  Communion in the hand, along with turning our altars around, has been one of the most powerful corrosives on our Catholic identity for the last few decades.

    How to receive on the tongue.  A lot of people have done this for a very long time.  It can’t be too hard, right?   While in some cultures there is a method of initially capturing the Host with the front teeth before drawing it into the mouth, the most common method is to extend the tongue a little way beyond the teeth so that the priest has a good LZ… landing zone, as it were.

    There is a great illustration from a classic catechism which can help.

    This is helpful if you are kneeling.  And don’t worry about putting your hands under the “houseling cloth” draped over the rail.  I get the sense that that isn’t going to be an issue for you.

    CLICK for the large version.

    If you are standing, use common sense with these same principles.  You have to adjust for the height of the priest or deacon.  Just make sure that there is a good, clear LZ for the Sacred Host.

    In the Ordinary Form of Mass, you say “Amen”, when the priest says “The Body of Christ… Corpus Christi“, and then put your tongue out.  In the Extraordinary Form, the priest will say the Latin prayer, which ends in “Amen”, which he says for both of you,  When the priest comes near to you, if you are kneeling, tilt your head back and put your tongue out.  He’ll take care of the “Amen”.  If you are standing, and maybe a little away from the rail, lean forward if you are far away.  Use common sense, but provide that good and obvious LZ on the tongue.

    You may take fire for presenting yourself for Communion in this, if the priest is a modernist or a dimwit. Sorry… that’s a tautology.     It is up to you whether or not you want to stick to your guns.  Don’t make a public scene during Mass.  Take your concerns to the priest afterwards and follow up with a letter summarizing your meeting.  If liturgical abuses are being committed, create some paper in case you need to go to the next level.

    In Redemptionis Sacramentum – an important disciplinary document from the Congregation for Divine Worship – we read:

    [90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.

    [91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.  Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

    [92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, [THERE IT IS!] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. [EXCEPT in the context of the Extraordinary Form, the Traditional Latin Mass!  Current law doesn’t apply to that Form in regard to Communion.] However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful[There is CLEARLY greater risk of profanation when Communion is distributed on the hand.]

    [93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.

  28. Site: LifeNews
    7 hours 9 min ago
    Author: Micaiah Bilger

    A New York woman’s complaint about her pro-life Uber driver may result in a lawsuit after she says the driver refused to take her to an abortion clinic.

    The unnamed woman’s story has been reported by a number of liberal news outlets. She initially shared her experience in a Reddit post, but it has not been verified.

    The woman identified herself as a 20-year-old college student in New York state. She said she is “in no position to care for a child,” and scheduled an abortion at a facility in New York City.

    She said she ordered an Uber, and noticed that the driver “seemed uncomfortable” not long after she got into the car, according to Yahoo News.

    “After a few more minutes he asked, ‘are we going to an abortion clinic?’ I was shocked; I had no idea what to say, so I just remained quiet. He then said ‘I know it’s none of my business, but…’ and proceeded to mention something about his wife being pregnant,” she remembered.

    The driver told her “how awful the procedure is” (aborting her unborn baby), and told her she may “regret this decision for the rest of her life,” she said.

    About half way into the hour-long drive, she said the driver informed her that he could not take her to the abortion facility.

    Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

    “There was a gas station and a closed antiques store, and around us was farmland and forest,” she wrote. “He said ‘I’m sorry, but I can’t take you the rest of the way. I can take you back to [my city], but you won’t be able to find another Uber out here.’”

    She said she got out of the car and cried; the driver waited 10-15 minutes and offered to drive her home, but she refused. She said she found a local cab company to drive her to the abortion clinic, where she arrived an hour late.

    She said she reported the driver to Uber and to the police. Reports indicate the driver does not work for Uber anymore.

    Now, the woman apparently is thinking about suing the driver, according to Christian Headlines.

    “I’d like to pursue further legal action against the driver if at all possible. Do I have a case? What should my next steps be?” she asked on Reddit.

    However, many of the commenters said she probably does not have a good case to sue.

  29. Site: RT - News
    7 hours 13 min ago
    Author: RT
    African swine fever has spread all across China’s mainland, threatening the country’s entire sprawling hog industry and the global supply of pork. The epidemic broke out nine months ago but still appears to be uncontained.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  30. Site: Zero Hedge
    7 hours 20 min ago
    Author: Tyler Durden

    The 19th century had opium dens. We have Starbucks.

    A little over half a year after it became the "world's biggest public toilet", Starbucks' efforts to address the resulting spiraling drug use (including opioids) in its bathrooms - while alienating as many of its legacy clients as possible - are expanding.

    According to Business Insider, Starbucks - which is now moonlighting as a safe house for both needles users across the country - will install needle-disposal boxes in bathrooms in stores in at least 25 US markets in the coming months. By this summer, the chain aims to have installed sharps boxes in bathrooms in all regions where such action has been deemed necessary. In other words, every Starbucks (public) bathroom will soon become a congregation space for both drug users and, soon after, their dealers.

    "We are always working and listening to our partners on ways we can better support them when it comes to issues like these," is how Starbucks representative Reggie Borges explained the company's new drug-friendly strategy to Business Insider.

    Photo via Getty Images

    Starbucks has been testing solutions in recent months as workers' safety concerns have mounted, with thousands of employees signing a petition calling for Starbucks to place needle-disposal boxes in high-risk bathrooms. The issued emerged in late 2018, after two employees in a Eugene, Oregon store were stuck with hypodermic needles within a month of each other, according to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) documents obtained by Business Insider through a Freedom of Information Act request. The stabbing led to a government investigation.

    "I think the biggest and boldest move that Starbucks leaders can do right now is step aside from the potential political problems behind needle-disposal boxes in restrooms and give it a nationwide launch," said one Seattle Starbucks worker whose location recently installed boxes in bathrooms. "We have had zero toilet clogs and zero needles found in an unsafe place since we had them installed last month," the worker said. "It's been really wonderful."

    "Wonderful" indeed, and now that needle-users know just where to go, the experience for all Starbucks users will be doubly as wonderful.

    A Seattle Starbucks worker and other employees at the coffee giant who have worked in urban locations, described how they have encountered syringes on the job is often a fact of life.

    "They generally appear in bathrooms, either wrapped up in paper towels or lurking at the surface of the garbage," the Seattle employee said. "We are responsible for removing them from public spaces and placing them in a sharps-disposal kit, always with gloves if not with tongs. Less often, they are poking out of the bottom of the bag when changing."

    While messy bathrooms and drug use can create an uncomfortable work environment, most employees' top fear is an accidental needle prick. Being stuck by a hypodermic needle means risking exposure to HIV and hepatitis, and it requires workers to immediately visit a hospital or urgent-care unit for testing and treatment.

    "It is a scary situation to see because we don't have needle-proof gloves and the only protection we have against any sharp objects is 'double bagging' a trash can with two bags instead of one, which is a ridiculous thing to actually think two plastic bags can stop a sharp needle," said a Nashville, Tennessee, Starbucks employee who has worked at the chain for more than a decade.

    Starbucks provides training for employees on how to safely deal with hypodermic needles, including instructions for how to safely dispose of garbage and what to do in case of a needle-prick injury. Sharps kits have long been available in Starbucks locations - albeit not installed in bathrooms - as stores have the option to order a sharps kit along with their first-aid kits.

    According to Starbucks, any employee who feels unsafe performing a task is encouraged to speak with his or her manager and will not be made to perform the action. Apparently that includes cleaning up the local trash which may or may not be overflowing with potentially infected needles.

    "These societal issues affect us all and can sometimes place our [employees] in scary situations, which is why we have protocols and resources in place to ensure our partners are out of harm's way," Borges said to Business Insider.

    While Starbucks has established safety procedures, government documents and conversations with workers reveal that Starbucks has recently been forced to find new solutions in response to employees' growing concerns about needle-stick injuries on the job.

    As noted above, in October 2018, the Oregon OSHA opened an investigation into a Eugene, Oregon, Starbucks location, after an employee filed a complaint with the administration. The reason: two employees had recently been stuck by hypodermic needles at the store, the OSHA investigation confirmed. As Business Insider notes, fears over needle sticks had reached such intensity at the Eugene Starbucks that a second employee filed a complaint after the Oregon OSHA had already begun investigating the situation.

    "The manager confirmed two employees had received needle stick injuries within the last month from hypodermic needles left uncapped in the bathroom, and stated needles and blood had been found in the bathroom at this location for over a year, but the frequency of needles being left in the bathrooms had increased significantly in recent months," the Oregon OSHA inspection narrative states.

    "During interviews, employees expressed frustration that a sharps container was not in the bathrooms for guests to use," according to the OSHA inspection narrative. "Employees who received a sharps injury stated that they had not been contacted by anyone from Starbucks' corporate office regarding their injuries."

    Starbucks was penalized $3,100 in the investigation, according to documents viewed by Business Insider, with the Oregon OSHA issuing fines for five violations in January 2019.

    To address what appears to have been a makeshift opium den in its bathroom, Starbucks made a number of changes at the location: the location removed fixtures in the bathroom, including the large trash cans, diaper-changing stations, paper-towel dispensers, and toilet-seat-liner holders, and it moved a portable sharps container closer to the area where sharps had been found. According to the letter of corrective action, there have not been any needles found in the location's bathrooms since it made the changes.

    The good news: for workers at the needle-challenged establishment, there was a tangible improvement. Prior to the redemia actions, three Starbucks employees in Seattle told local news outlets last October that they encountered hypodermic needles on the job nearly every day. They said they had to take antiviral medications to protect themselves from HIV and hepatitis.

    "My coworkers and I had all experienced needles left behind in the bathroom, store, and even in our drive-thru," one person who signed the petition to install needle-disposal boxes after working at a Starbucks location in Lynnwood, Washington, told Business Insider in January.

    "My primary fear when I worked there would be taking out the bathroom garbages," said the former employee, who quit in 2018 after three years at the chain. "I was terrified that if I went to take the bag out, I would get poked by a needle I didn't know was there."

    Needle boxes are not the only way that Starbucks has sought to address unsafe needle disposal in stores. In January, Business Insider reported that the chain was also testing using heavier-duty trash bags to prevent needle pokes and removing trash cans from certain bathrooms. Social-media reports revealed  that in Philadelphia, some locations have added blue lightbulbs in an effort to make it more difficult for people to find veins to inject drugs.

    "We are constantly thinking through different ways to address these societal issues, including heavier-duty bags among other options," Borges told Business Insider on Monday.

    Oddly enough, barely anywhere in the report was there any discussion of just why Starbucks trash cans are overflowing with used needles. And the reason is simple: the company's own idiotic decision to become the world's biggest public bathroom. Starbucks workers said they did not feel that issues grew worse after Starbucks announced anyone could use its bathrooms, whether or not they had made a purchase at the stores.

    In other words, the company is now scrambling to undo the damage that its own liberal, virtue signaling policies created. Even more ironic: the liberal audience that Starbucks sought so hard to "impress" are those who don't actually purchase the company's products but merely take advantage of what has now become the world's largest public toilet chain.

  31. Site: LifeNews
    7 hours 22 min ago
    Author: Micaiah Bilger

    Late-term abortionist Warren Hern’s writings on environmental problems may explain why he has dedicated his life to aborting unborn babies.

    His research papers, some of which have been published in academic journals, refer to human beings as a “planetary cancer” on the environment.

    In one paper, “Why Are There So Many of Us? Description and Diagnosis of a Planetary Ecopathological Process,” published on his website, the elderly Colorado abortionist argued that human population growth resembles cancer in multiple ways.

    Warren noted that he is not the first person to compare the human population to a disease.

    “Geologist Peter Flawn, speaking to students at Northwestern University in 1970, said that the earth’s crust has a skin disease, a case of microbes infecting its crust, and that sickness is man,” he wrote.

    In a series of diagrams, he then compared images of Baltimore’s and London’s population expansions to the growth and shape of a cancerous tumor.

    Like cancer, the human population is characterized by “rapid, uncontrolled growth” and “metastasis, or distant colonization,” he wrote. Humans also invade and destroy “normal tissue,” or other species, as their population spreads, he argued.

    Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

    “Human communities, once established, tend to invade and destroy all adjacent ecosystems without limits,” Warren said.

    Writing in 1989, he noted that the human population, like cancer, also “resists regulation.” As examples, he referred to the pro-life policies of President Ronald Reagan. The pro-life president took steps to protect unborn babies from abortion by defunding the United Nations Population Fund and establishing the Mexico City policy, which prohibits foreign aid to groups that promote and/or perform abortions.

    Without actually stating it, Warren implied that abortion is a solution to environmental problems. He argued that his hope, aside from human extinction, is that humans will take action to reverse their population growth. But he said it is unlikely to happen.

    “The idea that the human population is a planetary cancer is a profoundly disturbing conclusion, but the observations of the scientific community over the last 20 years have provided massive support for this hypothesis and little, if anything, to refute it. It is exceedingly rare that any cancer ever voluntarily or spontaneously stops being a cancer,” Warren concluded.

    With that point of view, is it any wonder that Warren may think of himself as a hero? By aborting unborn babies up to birth, he is helping the environment, in his mind. By reducing the population, Warren probably thinks he is saving the planet.

    Of course, Warren is correct that there are environmental problems throughout our world, and more work should be done to fix them. But his “solution” destroys human lives. An abortionist for 44 years, one can only guess how many unborn babies have died at his hands. Our world has many, many problems, but society must never solve these problems by destroying the most vulnerable and defenseless, including babies in their mothers’ wombs.

  32. Site: RT - News
    7 hours 39 min ago
    Author: RT
    The US State Department has hailed Ukraine’s presidential elections as “peaceful” and “competitive” as it congratulated comedian Volodymyr Zelensky on his victory and pledged “steadfast support” to Kiev.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  33. Site: Zero Hedge
    7 hours 41 min ago
    Author: Tyler Durden

    Authored by Kelli Ballard via Liberty Nation,

    Illinois Republicans push to be rid of Chicago by making it the 51st state – but will that help the conservative cause, or hurt it?

    Illinois just tried to jump on the newest trend of separating cities from states with a new proposal, HR101. If approved, this would detach the city of Chicago and make it the 51st state. While this is nothing new for Illinois, which has been fighting for years to distance itself from the more liberal and powerful city, the idea is growing in popularity.

    Chicago Vs Illinois

    Republicans who pushed for the House Resolution argue that the city ends up controlling the rest of the state. “Our traditional family values seem to be under attack at every angle,” said Rep. Brad Halbrook.

    “The issue of life, the issue of marriage, the school curriculum. Everything these people hold near and dear to their hearts — our hearts — is under attack by far-left legislators from the city.”

    The potential loss of traditional values isn’t the only reason many seek to separate city from state. Chicago has a population of approximately 2.7 million and a very different political stance.

    “The reality is the city of Chicago is competing with New York City and L.A. and San Francisco, and (downstate is) competing against rural Indiana and rural Missouri,” Rep. C.D. Davidsmeyer said. “The policies that come down from Chicago are actually pushing our economic opportunity away.”

    The Windy City also differs on important issues such as gun control and illegal immigration. Chicago wants stricter firearm regulation while the rural state supports sanctuary for gun owners. And, when it comes to open borders, the more conservative state pushes for immigration control while the blue city follows the Democrats’ lead.

    Proponents for the split claim their tax dollars go mostly toward the city, while opponents say the rest of the state receive more in federal and state grants for low income families because the majority of low to moderate income households are outside Chicago.

    Pros And Cons

    Probably one of the biggest advantages in favor of the separation is more representation for the state’s conservative populous when it comes to local and state elections and laws since Chicago’s massive population heavily sways the outcome.  According to HR101:

    “WHEREAS, The divide between the City of Chicago and downstate Illinois is frequently manifested in electoral results such as the 2010 gubernatorial election in which the Democrat candidate won the election despite only carrying four counties out of 102 counties, and, if fact, did not need to carry any other counties to win because of the margin of victory in Chicago and Cook County; and

    “WHEREAS, The City of Chicago is frequently treated as a separate region of the State and has often been exempted from major legislative initiatives the General Assembly enacts in law because of this fact.”

    Separating the city from the state is worrisome, however, for those on both sides of the political aisle. While it may help rural Illinois to have more control in local lawmaking, some conservatives fear the move will just create another Democratic seat which would end up usurping even more of the Republican power. Consider that each state gets two senators in Congress. If the issue is that Chicago is a liberal hotbed while the rest of the state leans conservative, then creating two more seats in the U.S. Senate that seem destined to be ever filled by progressive Democrats hardly seems a viable long-term solution.

    Economically speaking, Chicago has much more industry and business opportunities that the state could lose out on if the split becomes a reality. Professor John Jackson explained that they “don’t have anything close to that in the more rural parts (of downstate).”

    “People say Chicago’s a huge economy, there’s no way you can survive without them, (but) I have people on the other side saying Chicago’s killing us with their policies, we need to separate,” Davidsmeyer said. “I’m one of the people in the middle saying let’s see both sides of it.”

    Illinois isn’t the only state to consider kicking out one of its powerful and influential cities. New York residents have been fighting to make New York City the next new state. Washington state recently suggested splitting the east from the west so that the extremely liberal city of Seattle would not have so much say in the governing of more conservative areas in the eastern region. California has been trying for years to split the Golden State into three separate entities, while another group seeks complete secession. Could the fracturing of these states be the solution that best serves the most people, or would it, at best, be only temporary fix – until the newly minted progressive senators start to turn the tide of Congress?

  34. Site: RT - News
    7 hours 46 min ago
    Author: RT
    US President Donald Trump’s “deal of the century,” aimed at resolving the decades-long conflict between Israel and Palestine, looks dead in the water, as speculation continues that the plan will be far more favorable to Israel.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  35. Site: Zero Hedge
    7 hours 57 min ago
    Author: Tyler Durden

    "Worse than Watergate" is how Rep. Adam Schiff described the Mueller Report's findings as he doubled-down (or is it quadrupled?) on his fantasy dissonance about The Man In The White House.

    "Well, I think it’s clear from the Mueller report that that’s exactly right. The obstruction of justice in particular in this case is far worse than anything that Richard Nixon did. The — the break-in by the Russians of the Democratic institutions, a foreign adversary far more significant than the plumbers breaking into the Democratic headquarters. So yes, I would say in every way this is more significant than Watergate. And the fact that a candidate for president and now president of the United States would not only not stand up and resist Russian interference in our election but would welcome it goes well beyond anything Nixon did.

    The fact that the president of the United States would take Putin’s side over his own intelligence agencies go well beyond anything Richard Nixon did. So yes, I think it is far more serious than Watergate."

    So, it is with great irony that the previously outspokenly anti-Trump journalist, and Watergate exposer, Bob Woodward, sees things quite differently to Schiff.

    During an interview with Fox News’s Chris Wallace, Woodward said Sunday that the FBI and CIA’s reliance on the Steele dossier “needs to be investigated” now that the Mueller reported has undercut many of the salacious document’s claims.

    “What I found out recently, which was really quite surprising, the dossier, which really has got a lot of garbage in it and Mueller found that to be the case, early in building the intelligence community assessment on Russian interference, in an early draft, they actually put the dossier on page two in kind of a breakout box.”

    “I think it was the CIA pushing this. Real intelligence experts looked at this and said no, this is not intelligence, this is garbage and they took it out,” said Woodward.

    “But in this process, the idea that they would include something like that in one of the great stellar intelligence assessments, as Mueller also found out, is highly questionable.

    Needs to be investigated.”

    As The Daily Caller's Chuck Ross notes, the Justice Department’s inspector general is reportedly investigating the FBI’s handling of the dossier, which was used to obtain surveillance warrants against former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

  36. Site: Corpus Christi Watershed
    8 hours 1 min ago
    Josef Hofmann: “King of Pianists”
  37. Site: Mises Institute
    8 hours 1 min ago
    Author: Ralph Raico

    [This article appeared in the New Individualist Review, Volume 3, Number 3, Fall 1964, pp. 29-36, and is reprinted here as a prescient look at the errors of the old conservative critique of libertarianism and conservatism's vulnerability to the statist temptation.]

    The publication of a symposium on the question, "What is conservatism?"1 provides us with an opportunity to explore once again a complex of issues frequently raised in these pages—that having to do with the differences between libertarianism and conservatism. In this article, I shall not attempt to deal with all of the areas covered by these differences, nor with the essays of all twelve contributors to Meyer's symposium. Instead, I shall deal merely with certain aspects of the attempted reconciliation of the two philosophies that goes by the name of "fusionism."

    [RELATED: "Frank S. Meyer: The Fusionist as Libertarian" by Murray Rothbard]

    Frank S. Meyer and M. Stanton Evans are the two most notable exponents of the fusionist position, and they present their case in two essays in the present volume.2 The problem they are trying to solve may be stated in this way: the term "conservative" when applied to various writers in America today (especially when applied by social democratic writers, who usually have little familiarity with the literature) appears, on closer examination, to be equivocal. The authors of the following two statements, for example, although they are both sometimes considered "conservatives," clearly, have widely divergent approaches to so basic a question as the nature of government:

    In mankind's experience, government has always figured as an institution publicly representing shared insights into the meaning of life, God, man, nature, time.3

    Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application, or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order. This power is vested in the state or government... Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisonment.4

    There are, in fact, as Meyer and Evans point out, two distinct groups of writers which the term "conservative" in its current sense encompasses: those whose intellectual forebears are to be found chiefly in the ranks of the classical liberals of the 18th and 19th centuries (this group would include Hayek, Friedman, von Mises, etc.), and those who trace their ideas back primarily to Burke and the 19th century conservatives (Kirk is the best-known representative of this group, which also includes others associated with National Review and Modern Age). The first group is called by Meyer the "libertarians," and the second the "traditionalists." Often libertarians and traditionalists attack one another vigorously, and some in each camp have even maintained that the two view-points are fundamentally at absolute odds.

    It is true that members of the two factions very often have had similar opinions on questions of immediate political importance (which is one of the chief reasons why they are looked on as factions of one movement), but anyone who has read the works of the two groups is aware that there exist significant differences on a more basic level. These have to do with such matters as the weight given to tradition, the arguments used for freedom, the priority allowed freedom as against other values (order, virtue, and so on), as well as with (as the quotations from Niemeyer and von Mises show) what I am afraid we may have to call the "philosophical presuppositions" of the two view-points. The imposing task the fusionists have undertaken, then, is to resolve the differences between libertarians and traditionalists—and this by showing that both have something of fundamental value to contribute to a common "conservatism" (for that is to be the name of the amalgamated movement), and that both are likewise at fault in certain respects.

    What the libertarian (or classical liberal) has to offer, the fusionists maintain, is a good understanding of the meaning of freedom, of the dangers facing it, and especially of the connection between economic and other forms of freedom. He is mistaken, however, in disregarding "value" and the moral law, and in having no understanding of the goal and raison d'être of freedom, which is "virtue."

    The traditionalist, on the other hand, is the complimentary figure to the libertarian, and brings to the synthesis a—as the phrase goes—deep commitment to moral value, to virtue and so on. Moreover, he understands the part that tradition must play in the life of society, while the libertarian typically "rejects tradition." Thus, the stage is set for the synthesis, which will consist in a political philosophy developed on the basis of "reason operating within tradition," and upholding freedom as the highest secular end of man and virtue as the highest end of man tout court.

    It will be seen that anything approaching an exhaustive critique of this thesis would be impossible here.5 What I shall attempt to do, therefore, is simply to clear some ground by examining certain points in the fusionist thesis, with the aim of helping to provide the basis for a more analytical and less rhetorical discussion of these issues than has sometimes been the case in the past.

    Before one can determine to what extent, if any, classical liberalism6 must be modified, it is absolutely crucial, of course, for one to have a correct conception of what classical liberalism means. It appears to me, however, that in this regard, conservative and fusionist writers, while quite dogmatic, are also quite mistaken. As a rule, they are in the habit of treating liberalism in a casual, off-handed way, scarcely ever bringing forward any actual evidence to substantiate their rather free-swinging claims. At the risk of seeming unfair to M. Stanton Evans—which is certainly not my intention—I shall submit his conception of classical liberalism, which appears to me fairly typical of this view, to an extended analysis.

    Evans states:

    The libertarian, or classical liberal, characteristically denies the existence of a God-centered moral order,7 to which man should subordinate his will and reason. Alleging human freedom as the single moral imperative, he otherwise is a thoroughgoing relativist, pragmatist, and materialist. [p. 69]

    In this amazing statement, Evans asserts the following concerning the "typical" classical liberal or libertarian:

    (1) he denies the existence of a God-centered moral order;8

    (2) he alleges human freedom to be the single moral imperative;

    (3) aside from (2), he is a complete relativist, pragmatist, and materialist.

    Let us deal with these allegations in detail.

    (1) This is false, of course, in regard to the many liberals who were Christians (e.g., Ricardo, Cobden, Bright, Bastiat, Madame de Stael, Acton, Macaulay, etc.).9 Indeed, many classical liberals (including present-day ones) have felt that the connection between their political and their religious and ethical views has been a very intimate one. Frederic Bastiat, for instance, who, because of his "superficiality" and "glib optimism" is sometimes taken to be the very paradigm example of a classical liberal, expressed himself as follows towards the end of one of his more important works:

    There is a leading idea which runs through the whole of this work, which pervades and animates every page and every line of it; and that idea is embodied in the opening words of the Christian Creed—I BELIEVE IN GOD.10

    John Bright was the man who, with Cobden, and for twenty years after Cobden's death, was the leader of the Manchester School in British politics and political and economic thought—surely a typical liberal, if there is such a thing. Yet the following characterization of Bright, by his most authoritative biographer, hardly seems compatible with Evan's description:

    Religious feeling, in its simplest form, was the very basis of his life. He was always a Friend [i.e., Quaker] before everything else; and a servant of God; a man of deep, though ever more silent devotion.11

    Although Christians were probably, and theists certainly, in the majority, it is true that a certain number of liberals were atheists or (much more frequently) agnostics: J. S. Mill, Herbert Spencer, John Morley, etc. Nevertheless, the following points ought to be made: (a) the denial of a "God-centered moral order" has been no more characteristic of classical liberalism than its affirmation; (b) even if a majority of liberals had been atheists and agnostics, the connection is so far accidental and historically-conditioned, and not logical; (c) supposing the majority of liberals to have been tainted with unbelief in one form or another, Evans still presents no reasons for dismissing the liberalism of Christian writers like Bastiat.

    (2) The second charge—that the classical liberal or libertarian alleges "human freedom as the single moral imperative"—can hardly be seriously meant. Does Evans mean to say that liberals characteristically do not believe benevolence, or even lack of malice, to be morally enjoined on men? This cannot have been true of the many Christian liberals, and neither was it the case with the non-Christians, least of all the Benthamite utilitarians among them. Evans mentions only two names in connection with his general description: J. S. Mill and Herbert Spencer. Spencer explicitly states that, in addition to justice (respect for the rights of others), the moral code enjoins both "negative" and "positive" beneficence, the latter being the capacity to receive happiness from the happiness of others.12 This may not be an especially elevated view of our moral obligations, but it is nonetheless sufficient to contradict Evans's statement, at least in regard to one of the only two writers he mentions by name. But the statement is even more erroneous in regard to the utilitarian liberals. J.S. Mill makes their position clear in his well-known essay, "Utilitarianism":

    I must again repeat what the assailants of utilitarianism seldom have the justice to acknowledge, that the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent's own happiness, but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be a strictly impartial, disinterested and benevolent spectator. In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbor as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.13

    Far from being "characteristic" of classical liberalism, (2) is an attribute for which I doubt that a single example could be found in the whole history of liberalism.

    (3) Evans gives us virtually no idea of what he might mean by these three highly-charged terms, "materialist," "relativist," and "pragmatist," so we will have to deal with them as best we may.

    "Materialist" may have a precise philosophical, or a loose vulgar, meaning. Taken in the first sense, the assertion would be absurd: if any metaphysic were characteristic of liberalism, it would probably be idealism in one form or another, not materialism. Taken in the vulgar sense of addiction to, or espousal of, "material" (usually sensual) pleasures, the assertion is also invalid. It is, indeed, hardly worth rebutting, since to support this allegation, Evans only adduces a statement by Ernest Renan. We might as well point out, however, that, even ignoring the fact that "materialist" is scarcely a fair description of Bentham's form of hedonism, and certainly not of J. S. Mill's, the German liberals of the Classical period—e.g., von Humboldt and Kant—and the French liberals of the Restoration—e.g., Constant and Madame de Stael—assuredly had ideas on ethics and the destiny of man independent of any form of the pleasure philosophy.

    In Evans's view, the liberals were also typically "pragmatists." Whether this is supposed to mean that they were followers of Peirce and William James, or, in some looser sense, that they believed that the truth was "what works," is unclear. It would be tedious to attempt to salvage this claim by lending it some semi-reasonable meaning, and then showing that even then it had no foundation in fact. The rebuttal of the assertion, therefore, will wait upon its being given some sense.

    Evans also claims under (3) that the liberals, aside from their adherence to freedom, have been complete "moral relativists."14 This brings up an issue which is frequently raised by conservatives: often, the essence of the "moral crisis of our age" is seen in the decline of faith in "absolute values." It should be clear that the question of moral relativism vs. moral absolutism cannot even be intelligently approached until we know what is to be understood by these terms, but conservatives, in discussing the subject, generally fail to indicate their meaning. In general, philosophical discussion, the most important senses of the term "moral relativism" appear to be: (a) the idea that moral rules are defeasible, i.e., are not unconditionally valid; and, more frequently, (b) the idea that "it is logically possible for two persons to accept verbally conflicting ethical statements without at least one of them being mistaken."15

    (a) The idea that moral rules must be absolute in the sense that they are binding under all empirically possible conditions appears to be a sense in which conservatives often use the term. And yet it seems to me hardly a defensible position. Is it, after all, possible to cite a single moral injunction with content (not, e.g., "It is good to do the Will of God") and with application to social questions (not, e.g., "It is good to love God") which is unconditionally valid? Would it, for instance, be impermissible under all possible conditions to take the life of a man whom one knows to be innocent? It seems to me that circumstances could well be imagined in which this would be the reasonable—possibly even the moral—thing to do. Whether or not supported by classical liberals, moral absolutism in this sense appears to me to be an untenable position, the rejection of which cannot rightfully be made the grounds for censuring anyone.

    (b) The more common sense of "moral relativism" is the position that it is possible for what appear to be contradictory ethical statements to be true at the same time. A relativist in this sense might hold, for instance, that ethical statements are simply reports of the speaker's subjective feelings, and, therefore, the statement, "Murder is evil," may be true or false, depending on the actual feelings of the person who uttered it. Another form of this second sense would be that of a relativist who might hold that it is impossible to make ethical judgments transcending the bounds of different societies, and that an ethical statement may be "true" in one society and "false" in another. In this sense of relativism, however, the utilitarians (to take the group Evans probably has chiefly in mind) were almost paradigm absolutists. The reason for this is obvious. For any given situation in which an ethical judgment is to be made, the facts are what they are: one decision will maximize happiness, while a different one will not maximize it.16 Thus, although we may be mistaken in our decision, still, in principle, there is only one true judgment in each ethical situation.

    Thus, of the two most important senses of "moral absolutism," one is a sense in which, whatever the liberals may have thought, it cannot reasonably be defended; the other is a sense for which many adherents of moral absolutism can be found among the classical liberals.

    I have spent a good deal of time—and probably the reader's patience as well—in discussing these two sentences. But my justification lies primarily in the circumstance that these statements well summarize the inaccurate conception—"impression" would perhaps be a better word—of classical liberalism which many conservatives hold and propagate. It may well be that classical liberalism is superficial, unrealistic and obsolete; apparently modern-day conservatives are eager to join most of the rest of the 20th century in announcing so.

    But before we can accept this evaluation—and with it the idea that liberalism must at least be substantially modified—we must be satisfied, as so far we cannot be, that it is really classical liberalism which has been demolished, and not a strawman.

    Now I want to turn my attention to one of the chief problems which Meyer's and Evans's fusionism must attempt to solve: that of tradition. The role of tradition is often seen as the crux of the division between the two wings of what is allegedly basically one movement; the traditionalists, not unnaturally, emphasize tradition, while the libertarians are said to reject it. But just what is at issue here would be much clearer if, instead of scornful references to the French Revolution and the "apotheosis of reason" conservative and fusionist writers had outlined, in a more or less systematic way, what they have in mind when they speak of "tradition," and what they claim for it and why. Nowhere is lack of precision in this whole area more regrettable than in the repeated assertion that the classical liberals "reject tradition." The rejection of tradition can mean many different sorts of things, and depending on what is meant, it may be a good or a bad thing.

    If it means, for example, that the traditionality of an idea is not to be taken by the political philosopher as an argument for its truth, then the rejection of tradition, as far as I can see, is totally unobjectionable. For to defend the truth of an assertion on the basis that it has been the traditional belief of our society, presupposes that any belief that has been traditionally accepted by our society is very likely to be a true one. But contrary examples are available in too great an abundance to permit of any confidence in such a premise. Thus, recourse to tradition in abstract, speculative argument is invalid.

    On the other hand, when we say that a person accepts tradition, we might mean that he believes that tradition ought to play a large part, not in the evaluation of putative truths, but in the functioning of society, which is obviously a different thing. Here a person might argue along these lines: science is one thing, and life another. A systematic Cartesian doubt may be useful in the scientific enterprise, but, applied to social life, it would make mankind like "the flies of summer." It is necessary for the continuance of society, it could be argued, that a good deal of our moral code, for instance, be taken simply on faith, at least by the great majority of people, and probably by everyone. It would be intolerable to have the existence of organized society depend on each individual arriving at the indispensable moral rules through his own reasoning. Thus, there must be some means of attaching people to these rules. One of the most powerful of these means, the argument might continue, is tradition. People who could not follow the abstract arguments for the moral code nevertheless obey it, because of the affection and regard surrounding mores which have been adhered to for a very long time. Now, this is a plausible argument, and may well be substantially correct. The important thing to realize, however, is that it involves something completely different from maintaining the truth of a given assertion on the basis of its traditionality.

    Now, the second category may be further subdivided: there are traditions that are maintained in the social sector (typically the sector of free interaction among individuals) and there are traditions pertaining to the government sector (typically the sector of force or the threat of force). An example of traditionality In the social sector would be the continuance of Christianity in its received forms as the result of the private decisions, habits, etc., of people; an example in the realm of governmental activity is (or was, 200 years ago) the continuance of the persecution of Protestant "heretics" in France, Spain, etc.— that is, a tradition involving violent interference with the peaceful actions of individuals.

    Now a classical liberal may be an atheist, or he may be a Christian, or he may hold some other position on this question. If he is an atheist, it is likely that he will personally disapprove of the continuance of Christianity as the freely-accepted religion of individuals; his private opinion is likely to be that people would be more happier, more rational, or whatever, if they abandoned Christianity. If the classical liberal is a Christian, then presumably he will be pleased to see the continuance of the tradition of Christian belief. Thus, on this question concerning a tradition in the social sector, liberals may have various personal views of their own, but liberalism itself has no policy recommendations to make whatsoever; does not, in fact, concern itself with the matter. How does it stand with the second sort of traditional arrangement, that pertaining to the government sector?

    Here, before we can answer this question, we are compelled to make yet another distinction (and, as regards the libertarian-conservative controversy, possibly the most important one to be made): there are some traditional governmental arrangements which involve interference with the basic rights of the individual—the persecution of Protestants in France under the Old Regime, for example. Others, however, pertain to the structure of the government itself, and may not, in the first instance, have anything to do with individual rights at all, as, for example, a traditional adherence to bicameralism. In the case of the first sort of traditional governmental arrangement, the classical liberal characteristically and by the logic of his principles recommends the abolition of the tradition, i.e., recommends that the government cease doing certain things. With regard to this category, then, the liberal may be said to "reject tradition"—that is, he holds that the traditionality of the arrangement can be no argument in its favor. It must be tested against certain standards, and, if it is found wanting, steps must be taken towards its elimination.

    The case is different with the second sort of traditional governmental arrangement: that pertaining to the structure of government itself, as, for example, the extent and conditions of the franchise, and the form of the government (constitutional monarchy, republic, etc.). Such issues do not involve basic individual rights, in the sense that religious freedom and freedom from involuntary servitude are basic. Their function, from the liberal point of view, is to aid the preservation of the basic rights, and they may therefore vary to a great extent, depending on time and place. As Edouard Laboulaye, probably the outstanding French liberal of the later 19th century, put it:

    Whatever may be the epoch or the country, whatever the form of government or the degree of civilization, every man has the need to exercise his physical and spiritual faculties, to think and to act. Russian or Englishman, Frenchman or Turk, every man is born to dispose of his person, his actions and his goods... With political liberties it is not the same; they change according to the time and country. One does not always have need of the same guarantees [of liberty]; as the form of attack varies, so does that of the defense.17

    To summarize our rather rough classification of the senses of tradition (which is offered, with some trepidation, as a tentative basis for discussion):

    I. tradition in scientific and philosophical discourse: the traditional acceptance of a truth claim may be adduced as evidence in support of the claim;

    II. Tradition in the functioning of society: the traditionality of a societal arrangement may be adduced as good reason for continuing the arrangement. This may apply either to:

    A. the social (non-governmental) sector, i.e., to traditions not involving government action, or to

    B. the governmental sector. Under B we have

    I. political traditions violating basic individual rights, and,

    II. political traditions (primarily those having to do with the structure of government itself) which do not violate basic individual rights.

    In considering the differences between libertarianism and fusionism (as well as conservatism), I would locate the significant and challenging disagreement regarding tradition primarily under II A. That is, while classical liberalism as a rule restricts itself to attempting to secure individual rights by operating in the government sector (and in this endeavor may well make use of traditional political elements), fusionist and conservative writers claim that certain traditions within the social sector must often be regarded as necessary conditions for the preservation of liberty and ought to be actively cultivated and promoted by all supporters of a free society. This is especially true, in their view, of religion. The idea is suggested at times by Meyer and Evans, and is put succinctly by Stephen Tonsor, in his interesting essay, "The Conservative Search for Identity," in the present volume:

    Religion is important to the democratic state not only because it preserves the fabric of society but also because it acts as the most important power to check the aggressive, centralizing, and totalitarian tendencies of the modern state. Without a strong religion, which remains out-side and independent of the power of the state, civil liberty is unthinkable. The power of the state is, in part, balanced and neutralized by the power of the church. The freedom of the individual is most certain in that realm which neither church nor state can successfully occupy and dominate. [p. 1501]

    This represents, of course, a historical and sociological hypothesis concerning an alleged causal connection between religion and freedom. If true, it could indicate that certain policy recommendations might be in order which libertarianism would tend to frown on (Tonsor himself maintains that tax money ought to be used to support church schools). In any case, it is a thesis which ought, I think, to be elaborated and critically and dispassionately examined, for it appears to me to be the most interesting and the most plausible of the fusionist claims.

    This is only one of a number of important issues raised by fusionism which it is impossible to go into here. The claim that libertarians believe in the "innate goodness of man," and err in ignoring the reality of "original sin" (whatever might be meant by these two notions) is also one that should sometime be submitted to critical examination, if only because it is so often advanced. More important would probably be a discussion of the principle aim of fusionism: in place of our support of a free society for all our various ends (or simply for itself), to substitute support of it because it is a means to one particular end, namely "virtue," in whatever sense Meyer and Evans attach to the term.

    Finally, it should be evident that none of what has been said here is to be taken as indicating hostility or rancor towards the authors whose writings have been discussed. In contrast to a number of conservatives, Meyer's and Evans's real concern for freedom is obvious. And that their intentions are good ones is evidenced by the statement of Meyer:

    ...the development of a common conservative doctrine, comprehending both emphases (traditionalist and libertarian) cannot be achieved in a surface manner by blinking differences or blurring intellectual distinctions with grandiose phraseolgy. [p. 18, ital. added]

    Certainly a true and important judgment. It is unfortunate that, in the heat of battle it is too often forgotten.

    • 1. Frank S. Meyer, ed., What is Conservatism? (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964). 242 pp. $4.95.
    • 2. Meyer, "Freedom, Tradition, Conservatism"; Evans, "A Conservative Case for Freedom."
    • 3. Gerhard Niemeyer, "Risk or Betrayal? The Crossroads of Western Policy," Modern Age, Spring, 1960, p. 124. The context makes it clear that Prof. Niemeyer regrets the passing of this conception of government.
    • 4. Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (New Haven: Yale University, 1949, pp. 149, 715.)
    • 5. For a broader discussion of the fusionist position, see the forthcoming article by Ronald Hamowy in Modern Age: "Classical Liberalism and Neo-Conservatism: Is a Synthesis Possible?"
    • 6. In what follows, I shall be using the terms "classical liberalism," "liberalism," and "libertarianism" interchangeably.
    • 7. In a footnote to his essay (p. 232), Evans asserts that he is using "libertarian" to mean "the chemically pure form of classical liberalism," including the "acceptance of [an] anti-religious philosophy." Presumably he has abandoned this terminology in the passage quoted here. For if he has not, then the assertion of the anti-religiousness of the libertarian would be merely an uninteresting tautology, entailed by Evans's personal terminology, and, moreover, the passage would then have to read: "The libertarian, or classical liberal, necessarily denies..."
    • 8. It is difficult to see why Evans modifies the term "God-centered moral order" with the clause, "to which man should subordinate his will and reason." Presumably, the assertion of the existence of any moral order entails that one should subordinate one's will to it. As for the subordination of reason to this order, I take this to imply that God's moral order is not knowable by reason alone. Why such a view, even supposing that the typical libertarian maintained it, should be thought to be associated with freethinking and atheism, it is impossible to say. For it appears to be precisely the position of the Catholic Church: "Whilst therefore the Catholic believes that the moral law is knowable to man by sheer reason and experience, being the law of man's very nature, he believes that the fulfillment or non-fulfillment of it has more than natural implications." Thomas Corbishley, S. J., Roman Catholicism (London: Hutchin's University Library, 1950), p. 57 (ital. added). Since I cannot see that this clause could lead to anything but a confusion of the issue, I feel justified in ignoring it.
    • 9. While it is logically possible for one to be a Christian and at the same time to have some other "center" than God for one's moral system, still the rule has been that those professing Christianity have attributed to God the central role in their ethical systems. I am therefore taking the Christian faith of a classical liberal as prima facie disproof of Evans's assertion.
    • 10. Harmonies of Political Economy (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1870). Part 11, p. 150. Emphasis in text.
    • 11. G. M. Trevelyan, The Life of John Bright (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1914, p. 104)
    • 12. Social Statics (New York: Appleton, 1880, pp. 83–84.)
    • 13. Utilitarianism On Liberty and Representative Government (New York: Dutton, 1950, p. 16.)
    • 14. At times Evans implies that, not only are libertarians moral relativists, but that in consequence of this, they do not even hold that anything is immoral! E.g., (addressing the libertarians): "If there were no objective standards of right and wrong, why object to tyranny? If murder and theft are not immoral, why object to them either singly or in the mass?" (p. 72: ital. in text). We will, however, deal only with the first claim.
    • 15. Richard B. Brandt, Ethical Theory (Engelwood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1959, pp. 271, 154.)
    • 16. I am ignoring those very few cases in which the net utility of two different courses of action will be exactly the same.
    • 17. Edouard Laboulaye, Le Parti Liberal: son Programme et son Avenir (Paris, 1871, pp. 121–25.)
  38. Site: Mises Institute
    8 hours 1 min ago
    Author: Michel Accad, Anish Koka

    Does the vaccine debate have to be polarized according to “Pro-Vaxx” or “Anti-Vaxx” camps? Is it possible to have a reasonable discussion about harms and benefits of vaccines? Are public health concerns about unvaccinated children sufficient to trump individual liberty?

    Exploring the question with us is Dr. Niran Al-Aqba (twitter), a board-certified pediatrician in private practice in Washington State, an area hit by the recent outbreak of measles. Dr. Al-Aqba is a prolific writer who speaks widely and openly on a variety of issues, including policy, ethics, and medical practice. She is a regular contributor to the Kitsap Sun, to The Deductible blog, and to a variety of other outlets, including her own blog, MommyDoc. She is a mother of four children who’s been voted best doctor in Kitsap County on multiple occasions. She also serves on the clinical staff and admission committee at the University of Washington School of Medicine.

  39. Site: The Orthosphere
    8 hours 4 min ago
    Author: JMSmith

    “Guilt trip” is a phrase of the 1960s counter-culture that went mainstream as part of the psychobabble of the 1970s.  Trip originally meant a hallucination, since the “tripping” on which this metaphor is based was “tripping” on psychedelic drugs.  Hallucinations of guilt were said to result from ingestion of the false rules of the obsolete “bourgeois morality.”  Thus, for instance, if a square remonstrated with a dude that it was not cool to seduce his girlfriend’s best friend with the aid of his girlfriend’s stash of reefer, the dude would dismiss the square’s scruples as a risible attempt to send him on a hallucinatory “guilt trip.”

    Obviously, the concept of the guilt trip could only arise in the context of a general moral revolution, since it justifies repudiation of the dominant morality by a counter-culture. The lineage of the concept goes back to the Marxist notion of false consciousness, since to be taken in by the hallucination of a guilt trip is precisely equivalent to being taken in by the false consciousness of an ideology.

    False consciousness makes you consent to exploitation; guilt tripping makes you consent to repression.

    The concept has obvious links to Freud’s theory of the superego and repression.  Without going into too much detail, Freud taught that guilt originates as an indefinite psychic uneasiness. He said that this “guilt feeling” is caused by renunciation or frustration of a man’s instinctual drives, with the result that a sort of pressure develops in his psyche.  This pressure could be reduced by a more permissive morality, but it could never be altogether eliminated, and so must be accepted as a natural byproduct of human existence.

    Notice how Freud turned traditional morality on its head.  He tells us that guilt does not arise from the evil deeds we do, but rather from the “evil” deeds that we naturally wish to do, and yet do not do. This is Freud’s reality.  But over this reality, Freud says there is always the culturally-constructed appearance that guilt is caused by “evil” deeds that are done.

    This appearance is a guilt trip that constructs the natural byproduct of guilt into a useful instrument of social control.

    On Freudianism, every man naturally feels bad because his sex drive and bloodlust are unsatisfied. Society can adjust this guilt feeling by demanding greater or fewer renunciations from him, and it can also put this guilt feeling to work by associating it with deeds the society hopes to proscribe as evil. Since no deed really causes the guilt feeling, it follows that any deed can be made to appear as the cause the guilt feeling.

    The only question for a society is which deeds to poison with this powerful disincentive.  The only question is which guilt trip are the people going to take!

    Guilt is a strategic natural resource. Wars are fought over guilt and with guilt.  Anyone who has eyes to see must understand that the postmodern humanities are essentially programs in guilt engineering and technology, their whole purpose being to perfect and maintain the postmodern guilt trip in which racism, sexism, homophobia and climate-change skepticism are poisoned by the powerful disincentive of guilt.

    On Freudianism, there is also what we might call an economy of guilt, for guilt is a natural resource that must be manufactured into something.  This is why the new social guilt trips are most fully developed in populations where the old sexual guilt trips are most fully decayed.  A feminist professor doesn’t need adultery or Sabbath-breaking to explain why she feels bad.  She can explain that unease and foreboding with global warming or white privilege.

    But back when she started a life of adultery and Sabbath-breaking, she sure needed global warming and white privilege.

    I was not being rhetorical when I wrote that wars are fought over guilt and with guilt.  Our society has a new class of official guilt managers who control the general intensity of our guilt feeling, and who tell us what this feeling means.  Our old guilt managers were trained in seminaries and were called priests.  Our new guilt managers are trained in humanities departments and are called journalists.  But they in either case tell us that we feel bad because we do particular bad deeds.

    There is one last thing to note about the Freudian theory of guilt.  A guilt trip interprets the guilt feeling as a dread of punishment for some evil deed, but this dread surrounds the deed and does not merely follow it.  This means that I feel guilty when I merely consider an evil deed, because I even then foresee the punishment that would follow if I did anything more than consider it.  Thus, our guilt managers are able to paint even consideration of certain deeds with a repellant horror.

    To wage war with guilt, hostile aliens must take control of a society’s guilt management, and then paint with repellant horror even consideration of the deeds that would be necessary for that society to survive.

    And this is precisely what globalists do with their guilt trips about nationalism.  There is no hope for a nation feels repellant horror when it merely considers itself.

  40. Site: LifeNews
    8 hours 9 min ago
    Author: Cheryl Sullenger

    Fred Sokol had already stood for four hours praying and offering help to abortion-bound women with his bright yellow pro-life signs lining the street in front of Preterm, a high-volume abortion facility that also serves as a training grounds for future abortionists. It was six o’clock and time to go home.

    Fred picked up his signs and took them to his car. By the time he had packed up and started the drive home it was already around 6:20 pm. His route took him past Preterm, and it’s a good thing it did.

    Fred noticed the flashing lights of an ambulance and quickly parked. He saw that a fire unit and an ambulance with its back door flung open sat at the curb in front of Preterm with no one around.

    Fred began to snap photos from the public sidewalk when a second ambulance approached and parked behind the first ambulance.

    Public records related to this medical emergency, including a Computer Aided Dispatch printout, were obtained by Operation Rescue.  They showed that a call was placed through the 911 exchange at 6:19 p.m. on Wednesday, April 17, 2019.  The first unit, Med 3, arrived at 6:24 p.m.

    According to Preterm’s website, abortion appointments are available throughout the day and into the evening hours on Wednesdays.

    The 911 call recording revealed a slightly nervous caller from Preterm.

    “I have a patient that needs medical attention,” she told the dispatcher.

    That statement seemed odd since Preterm is actually considered a medical facility.  Wasn’t the patient already receiving medical attention?

    “She, uh, had an abortion – a second trimester abortion and she kinda bled pretty heavy,” the Preterm worker explained.

    The 32-year old patient was awake, breathing and in “stable” condition, according to the recording.  The “doctor” was reportedly with the patient at the time the call was made.  It became obvious that he or she was unable to control the bleeding and needed emergency assistance.

    Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page and receive the latest pro-life news.

    (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.10"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

    LifeNews.com

    Fred hadn’t been taking pictures long when several emergency workers came out of the building.  One began shouting at Fred to “Get out of here.”  He continued to snap photos, but stayed back a safe distance.

    The ambulance identified as Med 3 backed into one of the clinic’s two driveways in order to receive the patient, who was held inside the parking structure until the ambulance could slowly get into position. Once loaded into the ambulance, she was soon rushed away.

    That seemed unusual because all of the 13 medical emergencies that took place in the four years prior to the April 17 event, the ambulances had remained parked on the street.

    Twenty-four minutes after the 911 call was placed, the patient arrived at the University Hospital emergency room to receive “medical attention” that the abortionist at Preterm was incapable of providing.

    This incident raises several questions:

    • Hemorrhage is one of the most common complications to surgical abortion.  Why isn’t Preterm equipped and its personnel trained to handle this complication – one that has occurred at this facility at least a dozen times since 2014.
    • The ambulance arrived very soon after Fred Sokol had vacated the sidewalk in front of the facility.  Earlier that day, Operation Rescue had released 911 records related to an April 5, 2019 medical emergency at Preterm.  Did Preterm wait for Sokol to leave before calling for emergency help?  Did they delay calling 911 to keep Sokol from documenting this incident?
    • It took longer for the ambulance to back into the driveway than it would have taken to push the gurney to the ambulance on the street. Why did this delay occur? What were they trying to hide?
    • Are complications occurring because this is a training facility that is allowing trainees to make mistakes that are hurting women?
    • Why, for the first time, did two ambulances respond for only one person?

    “We have been informed that in some areas, when a pregnant woman is hemorrhaging, two ambulances are dispatched; one to care for the mother and the other to care for her baby,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue.  “This raises the question of whether the baby survived the abortion process for a short time. Because the second ambulance did not transport a patient, it is pretty clear the baby did not make it, if he or she survived at all.”

    Operation Rescue is in the process of filing a complaint with the Ohio Department of Health over this and the 13 other medical emergencies that have taken place at Preterm since March 2015.

    LifeNews.com Note: Cheryl Sullenger is a leader of Operation Rescue.

  41. Site: Zero Hedge
    8 hours 21 min ago
    Author: Tyler Durden

    Authored by Nouriel Roubini via Project Syndicate,

    After the global risk-off of late 2018, a newfound dovishness on the part of central bankers has combined with other positive developments to revive investors' animal spirits. But with a wide array of financial and political risks clearly in view, one should not assume that the current ebullience will last the year.

    Financial markets tend to undergo manic-depressive cycles, and this has been especially true in recent years. During risk-ons, investors – driven by “animal spirits” – produce bull markets, frothiness, and sometimes outright bubbles; eventually, however, they overreact to some negative shock by becoming too pessimistic, shedding risk, and forcing a correction or bear market.

    Whereas prices of US and global equities rose sharplythroughout 2017, markets began to wobble in 2018, and became fully depressed in the last quarter of the year. This risk-off reflected concerns about a global recession, Sino-American trade tensions, and the Federal Reserve’s signals that it would continue to raise interest rates and pursue quantitative tightening. But since this past January, markets have rallied, so much so that some senior asset managers now foresee a market “melt-up” (the opposite of a meltdown), with equities continuing to rise sharply above their current elevated levels.

    One could argue that this latest risk-on cycle will continue for the rest of the year.

    For starters, growth is stabilizing in China, owing to another round of macroeconomic stimulus there, easing fears of a hard landing. And the United States and China may soon reach a deal to prevent the ongoing trade war from escalating further. At the same time, US and global growth are expected to strengthen somewhat in the second half of the year, and the disruption of a “hard Brexit” has been averted, with the European Union extending the deadline for the United Kingdom’s departure to October 31, 2019. As for the eurozone’s prospects, much will depend on Germany, where growth could rebound as global headwinds fade.

    Moreover, central banks, particularly the Fed, have become super-dovishagain, and this appears to have reversed the tightening of financial conditions that produced the risk-off in late 2018. And on the political front, the chances of impeachment proceedings in the US have fallen sharply with the release of the Mueller report, which clears US President Donald Trump of criminal conspiracy charges (though it is not dispositive on the question of obstruction of justice). Now that the Russia investigation is over, Trump may avoid issuing destabilizing statements (or tweets) that could rattle the stock market, given that it is a key benchmark by which he judges his own success.

    Finally, in a positive feedback loop, stronger markets boost economic growth, which in turn can lead to even higher market values.

    These developments may or may not ensure clear sailing for the rest of the year. While markets have already priced in the aforementioned positive potentialities, other factors could trigger another risk-off episode.

    First, the price-to-earnings ratio is high in many markets, particularly for US equities, which means that even a modest negative shock could trigger a correction. In fact, US corporate profit margins are so high that there could be an “earnings recession” this year if growth remains around 2%, while production costs may increase with a tight labor market.

    Second, there are heightened risks associated with the scale and composition of US corporate-sector debt, owing to the prevalence of leveraged loans, high-yield junk bonds, and “fallen-angel” firms whose bonds have been downgraded from investment-grade to near-junk status. Moreover, the commercial real-estate sector is burdened with overcapacity, as developers overbuilt and e-commerce sales have undercut demand for brick-and-mortar retail space. Against this backdrop, any sign of a growth slowdown could lead to a sudden increase in the cost of capital for highly leveraged firms, not just in the US, but also in emerging markets, where a significant share of debt is denominated in dollars.

    Third, assuming that US economic growth holds up, market expectations of more Fed dovishness will likely prove unfounded. Thus, a Fed decision not to cut rates could come as a surprise, triggering an equity correction.

    Fourth, hopes of a resolution to the Sino-American trade war may also be misplaced. Even with a deal, the conflict could escalate again if either side suspects the other of not holding up its end. And other simmering trade tensions could boil over, if, for example, the US Congress fails to ratify the Trump administration’s revised North American Free Trade Agreement, or if Trump follows through with import tariffs on cars from Europe.

    Fifth, European growth is very fragile, and could be hindered by any of a number of developments, from a strong showing by populist parties in the upcoming European Parliament elections to a political or economic crisis in Italy. This would come at a time when monetary and fiscal stimulus in the eurozone is constrained and eurozone integration is stalled.

    Sixth, many emerging-market economies are also heavily exposed to political and policy risks. These include (from least to most fragile): Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Turkey, Iran, and Venezuela. And China’s latest round of stimulushas saddled its already indebted corporate sector with even more financial risk – and may not even suffice in lifting its growth rate.

    Seventh, Trump may react to the Mueller report with bluster, not prudence. With an eye to the 2020 presidential election, he could double down on his fights with the Democrats, launch new salvos in the trade war, stack the Fed Board with unqualified cronies, bully the Fed to cut rates, or precipitate another government shutdown over the debt ceiling or immigration policy. At the same time, the Trump administration’s approach to Iran and Venezuela could put further upward pressure on oil prices – which have rallied since last fall – to the detriment of growth.

    Finally, we are still in a world of low potential growth – a “New Mediocre” sustained by high private and public debt, rising inequality, and heightened geopolitical risk. The widespread populist backlash against globalization, trade, migration, and technology will all but certainly have an eventual negative impact on growth and markets.

    So, while investors’ latest love affair with equity markets may continue this year, it will remain a fickle and volatile relationship. Any number of disappointments could trigger another risk-off and, possibly, a sharp market correction. The question is not whether it will happen, but when.

  42. Site: LifeNews
    9 hours 5 min ago
    Author: Steven Ertelt

    A federal court of appeals ruled today that the state of Pennsylvania can essentially shut down a Catholic adoption agenda that refuses to compromise its Catholic values. The dangerous ruling has particularly concerning ramifications for the pro-life movement when it comes to conscience rights issues for pro-life groups and individuals.

    Last year, the city of Philadelphia canceled its contracts with Catholic Social Services due to its religious beliefs about marriage, displacing hundreds of children in the process.

    The city had put out an urgent call for 300 families to provide foster care to help care for the flood of children coming into the system due to the opioid crisis. Just a few days later, right in its moment of need, the city halted the child placements of Catholic Social Services and Bethany Christian Services to investigate whether these agencies had violated the city’s Fair Practices Ordinance, a policy that prohibits “discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

    Some religious adoption agencies opt to place children only with mother-father parents, in accord with their deeply held religious convictions. This includes some of the oldest and highest-performing adoption agencies in the country.

    Today, in Sharonell Fulton, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, a federal court of appeals sided with a new, discriminatory city policy that forbids the Catholic Social Services from doing what it has done for almost a century: uniting foster children with loving families.

    Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page and receive the latest pro-life news.

    (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.10"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

    LifeNews.com

    Catholic Social Services is one of Philadelphia’s best agencies and has partnered with the city for over 50 years. Yet in March 2018 the city suddenly threatened to shut down the agency because it disagreed with the agency’s longstanding religious beliefs about marriage—even though not one LGBTQ couple has ever approached Catholic seeking certification and the agency never prevented a child from finding a home. Represented by Becket, Sharonell Fulton, a single mother who has fostered more than 40 children in 26 years, joined other foster parents licensed through Catholic Social Services to file a lawsuit against the city.

    Fulton and other foster parents will continue fighting to provide stable, loving homes for Philadelphia foster children after a court ruled against them and the religious foster care agency they work with.

    “As a single mom and woman of color, I’ve known a thing or two about discrimination over the years,” said Fulton, a foster parent represented by Becket. “But I have never known vindictive religious discrimination like this, and I feel the fresh sting of bias watching my faith publicly derided by Philadelphia’s politicians.” Today’s court ruling lets Philadelphia continue that religious discrimination.

    There are 6,000 foster children in the City of Philadelphia. The need to find those children homes is so dire that earlier this year the city put out an urgent call for 300 new families to become foster parents. But shortly after this call for help, the city inexplicably prohibited Catholic Social Services from placing any more children with the families it has certified—solely because of the agency’s religious beliefs. There are dozens of families licensed to foster through Catholic Social Services who are willing to take in children, but because of the city’s actions, their beds have remained empty for close to a year.

    “This ruling is devastating to the hundreds of foster children who have been waiting for a family and to the dozens of parents working with Catholic Social Services who have been waiting to foster a child,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at Becket. “We’re disappointed that the court decided to let the city place politics above the needs of kids and the rights of parents, but we will continue this fight.”

  43. Site: RT - News
    9 hours 13 min ago
    Author: RT
    Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who has suffered a major defeat at hands of comedian-turned-politician Volodymyr Zelensky, remains optimistic and has announced plans to win next parliamentary and presidential elections.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  44. Site: OnePeterFive
    9 hours 13 min ago
    Author: Steve Skojec

    Just after I arrived home yesterday from Easter Mass, and gathered my children for an obligatory Easter photo to send to their grandparents. As I finished texting the photos to my mom and dad, I opened my social media feeds to find that another terrorist attack had claimed the lives of hundreds, many of them Catholics also attending Easter Mass, in the Asian island nation of Sri Lanka.

    I will warn you now, before I go on, that some of the images I will be sharing in this story are disturbing. They depict the aftermath of what Cardinal Robert Sarah aptly described as “barbaric Islamist violence.”

    What we now know, according to a report in New York Magazine’s Intelligencer, is that “at least 290 people have been killed and around 500 injured in Sri Lanka after suicide bombers from a religious extremist group struck churches and hotels in multiple cities on Sunday morning. Three Catholic churches were targeted while their Easter services were under way, and three five-star hotels were attacked in and around the country’s capital, Colombo.”

    The Intelligencer report says that “Sri Lankan authorities have asked media organizations to not publish the names of the attackers or give extremists ‘a voice’ — noting that groups may seek to inflame tensions and spark violence in the aftermath of the attack.”

    Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'T_Qhe8BkQMRGLvqROG90DQ',sig:'_MgxljT_5gKDeDEx45tHJa6iaievL6z4jP5-O4Xluug=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'1138510059',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

    Of course, as we know, this is often a tactic used to avoid mentioning that the perpetrators of a given attack are Muslims. And it turns out — as Cardinal Sarah indicated — that’s the case here, as well. A Sri Lankan Islamic group known as National Thowfeek Jamaath (NTJ) has now been blamed for the bombing, and 24 suspects have already been arrested. All are reported to be Sri Lankan nationals.

    Nevertheless, Sri Lankan Health Minister Rajitha Senaratne said in a press conference that officials “do not believe these attacks were carried out by a group of people who were confined to this country.”

    “There was an international network,” Senaratne continued, “without which these attacks could not have succeeded.”

    Journalist and author Paul Sperry says that authorities both in Sri Lanka and the United States suspect that the bombers trained with ISIS in Iraq and Syria. “Like ISIS,” Sperry tweeted, “their Islamist group obsessed w “Tawhid” monotheism — no God but Allah, no partners (Jesus) — why they raise the 1 finger.”

    Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'txIDdlqOSeRi1VltgCmryQ',sig:'MXghT20H4dnwUNbalfC4rOYc7dcPv-xo02sTw9w_DTQ=',w:'594px',h:'441px',items:'1138663071',caption: true ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

    One of the first reports I saw was this one, from Fr. Joseph Krupp, a priest of the Diocese of Lansing, Michigan, who signaled the deeper spiritual significance of the attacks for Christians on Easter:

    Hundreds of Christians murdered at Church on Easter Sunday.
    But we are not afraid; we stand with Him Who Rose from the dead, so we are more than conquerors.

    We are not deterred. We will pray for our persecutors & worship God.
    pic provided by @frgrantciccone #SriLankaAttacks pic.twitter.com/ku4QWRrSOJ

    — Fr. Joseph Krupp (@Joeinblack) April 21, 2019

    It became immediately clear, too, that the same Leftists who had no problem expressing solidarity with the “Muslim community” against “Islamophobia” after the New Zealand attacks were searching for euphemisms to avoid describing the Sri Lanka bombings as “Christophobic.” No expressions of solidarity with the Catholic or Christian Community were offered; instead, the victims were described as “Easter worshipers”…whatever that means.

    Given that Christians are the most persecuted religious group on the planet, with vast numbers more Christians being killed by Islamists than vice-versa, why are global leaders afraid to even use the word “Christian” in their condolences? pic.twitter.com/PPqlrXIcPs

    — Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) April 22, 2019

    Eduard Habsburg, the Hungarian Ambassador to the Holy See, pushed back hard against this term:

    It’s Christians that have been killed, not “Easter Worshippers”. Let’s repeat that for all who try to skirt the word: Christians. And just once more: Christians. #SriLanka

    — Eduard Habsburg (@EduardHabsburg) April 22, 2019

    As if to emphasize the point of who the victims really were, the following photo began circulating accompanied by a description saying that first communicants were killed in the attacks:

    Further research, however, indicates that this photo was from a tragic bus accident in Sri Lanka last week, in which 10 people were killed. Unfortunately, as the world grieves over a tragedy like this, it’s easy for false stories of this kind to go viral. That said, among the hundreds of dead and wounded were many children, and the fact that the above image is unrelated to the story does nothing to blunt the tragedy of their slaughter.

    To make matters worse, Sri Lankan authorities had been warned by the international intelligence community about possible suicide bombers attacking “prominent churches” weeks before the attacks, but nothing appears to have been done to stop them.

    The US State Department is continuing to warn that more terror attacks are possible in Sri Lanka and could occur with “little or no warning.”

    Please pray for those who have died or been wounded in these attacks, and for the consolation of their families. And remember that we are not just in a metaphorical war for the soul of the Church, but an actual war — whether we want it or not — with adherents of Islam who want to see us converted, subjugated, or killed. Please pray, too, for the conversion of Muslims, and the defeat of the evil ideology behind these attacks.

    The post “Barbaric Islamist” Easter Sunday Attacks in Sri Lanka Leave Hundreds Dead appeared first on OnePeterFive.

  45. Site: RT - News
    9 hours 19 min ago
    Author: RT
    The US government is offering a bounty of up to $10 million for information about three alleged financiers of Hezbollah, a Lebanon-based organization that the US considers to be Iran-backed terrorists.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  46. Site: The hermeneutic of continuity
    9 hours 23 min ago
    The Supper at Emmaus. Attributed to Paolo Antonio Barbieri. (Wikimedia)
    The resurrection of Jesus was different from the resurrections of Lazarus, of Jairus’ daughter, and of the son of the widow of Naim. Those people were all raised to continue their earthly lives, and would eventually die again. Jesus rose once and for all and would never die again. (Rom 6:9)

    The resurrection of Jesus was also different in that his risen body was in a state of glory. When he appeared to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, they did not recognise him until the breaking of the bread, and then he vanished from their sight. (Lk 24:31) When he appeared to the apostles in the upper room, he entered through closed doors. At the sea of Tiberius he was only partly recognised at first. (Jn 21:1-14)

    These aspects of the appearances of Jesus, which make them significantly different from ordinary human encounters, lead some people to the erroneous idea that the resurrection of Jesus was not physical. However the gospels do not allow us that option since other parts of the same accounts show a very definitely physical Jesus.

    Our Lord tells the disciples to look at the wounds in his hands and his feet, and to “feel” them. (Lk 24.39) St Luke, a medic himself, uses the Greek word ψηλαφάω that would have been used at the time to mean “to feel” in general, but in particular to palpate as in the doctor poking at your stomach during an examination. Our Lord then asks the apostles if they have something for him to eat, and St Luke gives the details – they give Him some grilled fish and honeycomb which he eats in front of them. On another occasion, the apostle Saint Thomas is asked to put his fingers into the holes that the nails made in Our Lord’s hands. In Galilee, Jesus tells the disciples to come and have breakfast. (Jn 21:12)

    It is true, then, that Our Lord’s risen body was in a state of glory: He made use of the characteristics of His risen body to bring the apostles to a living and personal faith in Him, risen from the dead. He enlightened them with a thorough understanding of the scriptures of the Old Testament, showing them that they had been fulfilled in Himself.

    But it is also true that Jesus makes a point of showing them unambiguously, and in such a way that they would record it for posterity, that He was physical and tangible in His human body. They could say “It is the Lord!” meaning the same Lord that they had known and loved ever since He first called them to be His disciples.

    This is of supreme importance for us because God the Son became a man, so as to communicate His divinity to us. He shared in our human nature, so that we could be “partakers in the divine nature” as St Peter put it. (2 Pet 1:4). The physical resurrection of Jesus is the ultimate guarantee that until the end of time, human beings, made of body and soul, can share in His divine life through Baptism and the Holy Eucharist.
    For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. (1 Cor 15:21-22)And as Saint Paul pointed out: if Christ didn’t rise again, then our faith is vacuous.


  47. Site: LifeNews
    9 hours 39 min ago
    Author: Amanda Lord

    Students for Life is no stranger to having our Cemetery of the Innocents displays stolen, vandalized, or torn down. We get it—there’s angry pro-choicers who have been indoctrinated by their professors to hate other points of views, so this is the only way they know how to deal with their frustration. 

    But, it’s another issue when university administrators at Catholic universities order the removal of pro-life displays and says crosses could “create harm.” And that’s exactly what happened recently at Dominican University, a Catholic university in the suburbs of Chicago.  

    Around 10 AM on Wednesday, March 27th, Stars for Life, the Students for Life group at Dominican University, set up over 900 crosses in the Lewis Alcove. Soon after, Barrington Price, the VP of Student Success, approached a Students for Life leader said he liked our display but questioned if anyone had vetted our display. The administrator asked the student leader to join him in his office. Students for Life Regional Coordinator Sarah Minnich, along with Price, the student, and a campus ministry administrator all were in the office. 

    After the conversation, Minnich was pulled into another conversation by the Chief Diversity Officer/Title IX Coordinator Sheild Radford-Hill, and another woman. 

    According to an e-mail obtained by Students for Life of America, the school did indeed approve the application for the display. Kate Schmidt, an administrator at the university wrote, “…the event is approved. However, can you please use a different logo as we don’t want to violate copy right laws with the use of it without their permission. Thanks.” 

    Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page and receive the latest pro-life news.

    (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.10"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

    LifeNews.com

    Sarah Minnich, Illinois Regional Coordinator for Students for Life of America condemned the school’s actions. She stated, “Catholic universities should be the first place trumpeting pro-life values and supporting the rights of students to talk about the issue of abortion. It’s Catholics like the administrators at Dominican who give Catholics a bad name, by being too afraid to even let other people talk about abortion on campus.” 

    In the meeting, in a conversation captured with audio, Price tells Minnich,  

    “I think the crosses are a message, that could be more, would evoke more of an emotional cross, than is what we are looking for. I am all about folks sharing different perspectives, I believe in what you’re doing….where we start to do other catchy things, to really characterize the message that we’re selling, if that creates unnecessary harm…that’s where I start to get worried.” 

    He also tells Sarah that the crosses could “create harm.” 

    Outside at the display, another person, believed to be a staffer or administrator, said she is ‘pro-life’ but she is also pro-choice, which includes ending a human life. Following this, there is a back and forth where a pro-choice staffer/administrator says that it is better that babies be aborted than growing up in an abusive environment or in an area where there is gang crime [Dominican University is roughly 15 miles from the South Side of Chicago]. 

    She also claimed that her support for abortion was okay, because the ends do not justify the means. But, her argument was that abortion is justified because it will help people, which is literally what the ends justifying the means, means. 

    To summarize, pro-life students obtained permission to set up a pro-life display on campus. Officials at the Catholic university ordered that it be taken down, because imagery likes crosses could “create harm.” Yeesh. 

    LifeNews Note: Amanda Lord is the Digital Media Strategist for Students for Life.

  48. Site: RT - News
    9 hours 41 min ago
    Author: RT
    As Washington has renewed its push to bring Iran’s oil exports “to zero” the US decision to lift special sanctions waivers for certain Iranian oil purchasers has drawn the ire of America's NATO ally - Ankara.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  49. Site: RT - News
    9 hours 46 min ago
    Author: RT
    Tehran’s appointment of a hardline new commander of its Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) could signal that Iran is preparing for conflict with the US, former Pentagon analyst Michael Maloof has told RT.
    Read Full Article at RT.com
  50. Site: Gloria.tv
    9 hours 53 min ago
    Author: Jungerheld

Pages

Subscribe to Feeds