Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

American air defense capabilities are stretched thinly around the globe, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has claimed

The US has no Patriot missile systems to spare for Ukraine, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has told MSNBC.

The official was responding to reported comments by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky. Addressing a virtual meeting of the so-called Ukraine Defense Contact Group on Friday, Zelensky demanded “at least seven” Patriot batteries from his Western backers. Kiev’s main sponsor, however, has indicated that it has none to spare.

“The US Patriot systems right now are being deployed around the world, including in the Middle East, to protect US troops,” Sullivan said.

“If we can unlock further American Patriot batteries we would send them. But we are doing a lot of the supplying of the actual missiles that go into those batteries that get fired,” the official insisted.

The US is not willing to risk undermining its own security, but it is working around the clock to pressure the EU, NATO, and other partners to share their air defense capabilities with Ukraine, Sullivan added.

The Pentagon has pledged additional Patriot munitions as part of a “historic” $6 billion assistance package announced on Friday. However, the interceptors could take months or even years to arrive, as the batch will not come from existing Pentagon stockpiles. Instead, the announcement “represents the beginning of a contracting process” with the US defense industry.

Manufactured by US arms giant Raytheon, a single MIM-104 Patriot battery costs over $1 billion. It consists of multiple truck-mounted units, including power, radar, antenna, engagement control and other support vehicles, as well as up to eight launchers with interceptor missiles.

The US has produced over 1,100 Patriot launchers over the years. It is estimated to have hundreds in active service and in storage, but has only sent a single battery to Ukraine. Germany has donated two more full batteries, while the Netherlands has shared two individual launchers.

“In the meantime, what we’re going to do is work with European partners and partners in other parts of the world to get them to provide additional air defense capability to Ukraine,” Sullivan added.

In addition to Germany and the Netherlands, other European nations that operate Patriot systems include Poland, Spain, Greece, and Romania. While Berlin recently promised to supply yet another Patriot battery to Ukraine, Warsaw said earlier this week that it has no air defense systems to spare. 

Spain has stated it can only provide a “small number” of Patriot interceptor missiles from its stocks, but not the actual systems. Greece has also resisted outside pressure, and Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has insisted no action will be taken “that could even remotely endanger our nation’s deterrent capabilities or air defense.”

The plan to target menthol flavored products had divided the African-American community, the Democrats’ traditional base

The White House has indefinitely postponed plans to ban menthol cigarettes, after polls showed a drastic drop in African-American support for President Joe Biden ahead of the November election, according to the Wall Street Journal.

About 81% of black smokers used menthols as of 2020, the year when Biden got 91% of the black vote. Recent polls showed only 68% of African Americans planning to support the Democrat this time around, however.

“It’s clear that there are still more conversations to have, and that will take significantly more time,” Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a statement on Friday, noting the feedback the proposed ban received from civil rights and criminal justice reform groups.

The ban was first proposed in April 2021, as part of Biden’s “Cancer Moonshot” initiative. The White House argued that outlawing menthol cigarettes would help “people of color” improve health outcomes. Menthols account for more than 30% of all cigarettes sold in the US each year, and are the most popular among black and Hispanic smokers. 

The plan ended up sharply dividing the Democratic voter base, however. Biden’s former domestic policy adviser Susan Rice has argued that delaying the ban “puts more Black lives at risk,” while the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) endorsed the ban on flavored tobacco products as a “social justice issue.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) countered that the ban would create a black market for menthols and drive up negative interactions between police and African Americans, all of which would “disproportionately impact people of color, as well as prioritize criminalization over public health and harm reduction.”

Altria Group and Reynolds American, the two largest US cigarette makers, also lobbied against the ban. 

Canada effectively banned menthols by 2018 and the EU did the same in 2020. A study from the University of Waterloo in Canada, based on those bans, projected that the White House proposal would cause 1.3 million smokers to quit within two years, including some 380,000 African Americans.

“The science is clear that there will be a massive health benefit from removing menthol cigarettes,” said Mitch Zeller, former director of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products. Zeller suggested that political considerations were behind the Biden administration’s decision.

According to the FDA, it is “likely that menthol cigarettes pose a public health risk above that seen with non-menthol cigarettes.”

“This is a commonsense plan which could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives,” said Congresswoman Robin Kelly, an Illinois Democrat who chairs the Health Braintrust of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Menthols are currently banned in two US states, California and Massachusetts, and over 100 municipalities across the country.

A committee of the US Congress has heard shocking testimony about alleged forced organ harvesting from Uyghurs and Falun Gong practitioners in China.

The chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC), Congressman Chris Smith, has been studying this issue for years. He is firmly convinced that China is permitting horrific violations of human rights.

“Forced organ harvesting on an industrial scale in China is an atrocity unmatched in its wickedness—one has to go back to the horrific crimes committed in the 20th century by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot to find comparably systemic atrocities,” he stated in his introduction to a hearing on March 21. “The numbers of those executed or their organs—some even before they are brain dead—is staggering.”

Amongst the witnesses before the CECC was Dr Maya Mitalipova, the director of the Human Stem Cell Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research. She is a Uyghur who was born in Kazakhstan.

Please follow LifeNews on Rumble for the latest pro-life videos.

Her allegations were astonishing. She said that the Chinese Government has built the world’s largest DNA database with the help of American technology. The DNA of the indigenous populations of Tibet and Xinjiang, where most of China’s 15 million Uyghurs and other Turkic people live, has been sequenced. She estimated that sequencing the DNA of 15 million people would cost US$1 or 2 billion. Why would the government do this?

Her blood-curdling answer is that the Chinese government uses the database to select organ donors.

When a patient requests an organ in China, his/her DNA sequenced data will be “blasted” against millions in the DNA database stored in computers. Within a few minutes, a perfect match will be found. If a potential donor of the organs is not in prison or a camp, then Chinese authorities can easily find a reason to detain a match to be killed for their organs on demand.

This is the main reason why Chinese government invested billions of dollars to DNA sequencing of entire population of Xinjiang and Tibet. Because it will make exponentially many more billions of dollars per year in return.

Ethan Gutmann, an expert on organ harvesting, also testified that young and healthy Uyghur adults are being taken from mass internment camps and killed for their organs.

Gutmann, the author of “The Slaughter”, a book about forced organ harvesting, has been investigating organ harvesting in China for years. Initially, he said, adherents of the banned Falun Gong movement, were used. But around 2017 China began to source organs from Uyghurs and other Muslims in Xinjiang for patients from the Middle East. “On the assumption that Gulf state organ tourists prefer Muslim donors who don’t eat pork, [China] has tried to capitalize on the switch from Falun Gong to Uyghur sources.”

Another witness before the CECC was Anne Zimmerman, the chair of the New York City Bar Association Bioethical Issues Committee. She said that bioethicists had a special responsibility for ensuring that institutions did not collaborate in organ harvesting.

A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, Liu Pengyu told Radio Free Asia that China was governed by laws and “the sale of human organs and illegal transplant are strictly prohibited”.“The human rights of people of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang have been fully protected,” he said. “The claims you mentioned do not hold water and mean nothing except manufacturing sensational

LifeNews Note: Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge where this story appeared.

The post China Reportedly Engaged in Forced Organ Harvesting on a Massive Scale appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Iran’s Nightmares

Details of the recent limited Israeli retaliatory strike against Iranian anti-aircraft missile batteries at Isfahan are still sketchy. 

But nonetheless, we can draw some conclusions.

By: Victor Davis Hanson

Blade of Perseus

April 25, 2024

Israel’s small volley of missiles hit their intended targets, to the point of zeroing in on the very launchers designed to stop such incoming ordnance.

The target was near the Natanz enrichment facility. That proximity was by design. Israel showed Iran it could take out the very anti-missile battery designed to thwart an attack on its nearby nuclear facility.

The larger message sent to the world was that Israel could send a retaliatory barrage at Iranian nuclear sites with reasonable assurances that the incoming attacks could not be stopped. By comparison, Iran’s earlier attack on Israel was much greater and more indiscriminate. It was also a huge flop, with an estimated 99 percent of the more than 320 drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles failing to hit their planned targets.

Moreover, it was reported that more than 50 percent of Iran’s roughly 115-120 ballistic missiles failed at launch or malfunctioned in flight.

Collate these facts, and it presents a disturbing corrective to Iran’s non-stop boasts of soon possessing a nuclear arsenal that will obliterate the Jewish state.

Consider further the following nightmarish scenarios: Were Iranian nuclear-tipped missiles ever launched at Israel, they could pass over, in addition to Syria and Iraq, either Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the West Bank, Gaza, or all four. In the cases of Jordan and Saudi Arabia, such trajectories would constitute an act of war, especially considering that some of Iran’s recent aerial barrages were intercepted and destroyed over Arab territory well before they reached Israel.

Iran’s strike prompted Arab nations, the US, the UK, and France to work in concert to destroy almost all of Iran’s drones. For Iran, that is a premonition of the sort of sophisticated aerial opposition it might face if it ever decided to stage a nuclear version.

Even if half of Iran’s ballistic missiles did launch successfully, only a handful apparently neared their intended targets—in sharp contrast to Israel’s successful attack on Iranian missile batteries. Is it thus conceivable that any Iranian-nuclear-tipped missile launched toward Israel might pose as great a threat to Iran itself or its neighbors as to Israel?

And even if such missiles made it into the air and even if they successfully traversed Arab airspace, there is still an overwhelming chance they would be neutralized before detonating above Israel.

Any such launch would warrant an immediate Israeli response. And the incoming bombs and missiles would likely have a 100 percent certainty of evading Iran’s countermeasures and hitting their targets.

Now that the soil of both Iran and Israel is no longer sacred and immune from attack, the mystique of the Iranian nuclear threat has dissipated.

It should be harder for the theocracy to shake down Western governments for hostage bribes, sanctions relief, and Iran-deal giveaways on the implied threat of Iran successfully nuking the Jewish state.

The new reality is that Iran has goaded an Israel that has numerous nuclear weapons and dozens of nuclear-tipped missiles in hardened silos and on submarines. Tehran has zero ability to stop any of these missiles or sophisticated fifth-generation Israeli aircraft armed with nuclear bombs and missiles.

Iran must now fear that if it launched 2-3 nuclear missiles, there would be overwhelming odds that they would either fail at launch, go awry in the air, implode inside Iran, be taken down over Arab territory by Israel’s allies, or be knocked down by the tripartite Israel anti-missile defense system.

Add it all up, and the Iranian attack on Israel seems a historic blunder. It showed the world the impotence of an Iranian aerial assault at the very time it threatens to go nuclear. It revealed that an incompetent Iran may be as much a threat to itself as to its enemies. It opened up a new chapter in which its own soil, thanks to its attack on Israel, is no longer off limits to any Western power.

Its failure to stop a much smaller Israel response, coupled with the overwhelming success of Israel and its allies in stopping a much larger Iranian attack, reminds the Iranian autocracy that its shrill rhetoric is designed to mask its impotence and to hide its own vulnerabilities from its enemies.

And the long-suffering Iranian people?

The truth will come out that its own theocracy hit the Israeli homeland with negligible results and earned a successful, though merely demonstrative, Israeli response in return.

So Iranians will learn their homeland is now vulnerable and, for the future, no longer off limits.

And they will conclude that Israel has more effective allies than Iran and that their own ballistic missiles may be more suicidal than homicidal.

As a result, they may conclude that the real enemies of the Iranian nation are not the Jewish people of Israel after all, but their own unhinged Islamist theocrats.

Many Culprits Behind Rise of Antisemitism, Including the Media

By: Howard Levitt

Gatestone Institute

April 23, 2024

Over the last several years, Canadian employers have increasingly brought in “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) trainers to rid their workforces of conscious, and even subconscious, racism. On the face of it, who can object to diversity, equity and inclusion? It is like objecting to Santa Claus.

Unfortunately, these workshops too often have been hijacked by radical ideologues who pitted races against each other. The unhappy story of Richard Bilkszto, who committed suicide after alleging he was deemed a racist by one such trainer for observing that Canadians are not more racist than Americans, was simply the publicly exposed tip of that iceberg.

I have had many Jewish clients, even before Oct. 7, complain about how Jews have been treated in these DEI seminars. To what extent has this radical training played a role in the sudden outpouring of antisemitism here?

Who indeed is to blame for the wave of hatred toward Jews that is roiling Canadian workplaces, universities, unions, social media postings, even our streets and neighbourhoods?

Antisemitism has had a long sordid history in Canada and, for some (ironically many of those who have never knowingly even met a Jew), it has always been hidden just below the surface. There was a reprieve after the guilt induced by the atrocities of the Second World War. But it is ascendant again, and surprisingly, its adherents are proudly so.

Who are the purveyors of antisemitism?

Obviously, first are the radical Islamists importing their ancient historic Jew-hatred based on their particular interpretation of the Koran. Their hatred of Christians and other “infidels” is only slightly behind in the hierarchy.

There is the radical woke left, which has, since Israel’s underdog defeat of the combined armies of Jordan, Egypt and Syria in 1967, viewed Israel as an oppressor. I believe much of the antisemitism in the public sector union movement can be attributed to that strain.

There is the influence of DEI which has too often placed Jews at the top of a racial hierarchy, ignoring the fact that Jews have always been, and remain, dramatically more discriminated against than any other group, including those groups at the supposed bottom of the DEI hierarchy of intersectionality: Indigenous, Blacks, Muslims and the LGBTQIA+.

Allied with those forces are universities and colleges, which have been temples of wokeness for years, penalizing students who express views that dissent from their left-wing pronouncements. While campuses are hotbeds of support for Hamas, polls have shown young people who have not been in the clutches of our university and college professors support Israel, as do most other groups in Canada by large majorities.

Although I am distinguishing them, the left, the universities and DEI practitioners are somewhat interchangeable, and have many of the same members.

The last group which I believe has been responsible for rising antisemitism are irresponsible media publications.

Canada’s public broadcaster, the CBC, has been particularly one-sided and unrelenting in its coverage of the conflict between Israel and Hamas. It still does not describe Hamas as a terrorist organization and has yet to apologize for falsely accusing Israel of bombing a hospital and killing hundreds — even though it has long been acknowledged that a misfired Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket was to blame and that the death toll was much lower.

Consistently, the CBC has presented a view of the war, distorted in Hamas’ favour.

In a recent column in the daily Toronto Sun, Warren Kinsella revealed that the CBC has a committee struck to directly oversee its coverage on Israel. He also reported that Jewish journalists there say the stories they pitch on the war are being routinely ignored.

CBC is the worst, but it is not alone. Montreal’s La Presse daily ran a ghoulish cartoon depicting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a repulsive vampire with a big nose and sharp claws poised to suck the life out of Palestinians, referring to him as “Nosfenyahu” in reference to the 1922 German silent horror movie Nosferatu, which has long been seen as deeply antisemitic. The Toronto Star has also published columns with strong anti-Israel positions.

I will close with a disturbing, but unsurprising, story about our public broadcaster. It says it all.

Early in the war, CBC sought out “deeply personal essays” about what it means to be Jewish and Canadian today, and welcomed Jewish Canadians to pitch their stories.

As a result, Shawna Cohen of Toronto submitted a piece. A producer from the CBC responded:

“Specifically, I’d like to hear from someone who wants a ceasefire/is finding it hard to be pro-Israel right now OR someone who supports the war despite the high cost of civilian life — and how their personal lived experiences inform those views. Please let me know if you might want to write something along those lines, and if so, what would your take be.”

Ms. Cohen wrote back:

“As a Jewish person, I feel I have a responsibility to let you know that the specific angle CBC is searching for is dangerous and narrow-minded. The Jewish community is feeling extremely unsafe — in Canada and beyond.

“Rather than providing writers with an opportunity to share how and why Jews are feeling this way, CBC has reverse engineered the narrative. It is specifically seeking out a rare breed of Jew who doesn’t support Israel and/or is willing to negotiate with a terrorist organization. Taking this approach only contributes to anti-Israel propaganda.

“To be honest, I was reluctant to pitch my story to CBC because of its established record of anti-Israel and anti-Zionist bias. From your response, it is clear that CBC does not welcome genuine opinions or perspectives that are not viewed through its own narrow, sociopolitical lens. This reality is unconscionable for a publicly funded broadcaster that considers itself the voice of a nation.”

She never received a response.

Hopefully our public broadcaster will be defunded soon enough. It has become a national disgrace.

Howard Levitt is the senior partner of Levitt Sheikh, Canadian employment and labour lawyers, and Bencher (Director) of the Law Society of Ontario.

Openly Jewish

By: Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Restoration

April 23, 2024

Last week, the English-speaking world watched in horror a short video clip of a Jewish man in central London being kept away from a pro-Palestinian protest march. It was filmed on Saturday 13th April. A British policeman addresses Gideon Falter, a smartly dressed man wearing a suit and small yarmulke, warning him:

You are quite openly Jewish, this is a pro-Palestinian march, I’m not accusing you of anything, but I’m worried about the reaction to your presence.

These words are naturally horrifying to hear. It is no surprise, given the great suffering of Gazan civilians during Israel’s armed response to brutal and unjustifiable Hamas attack of October 7th, that tensions at such protests are high. Peaceful, law-abiding protest is a fundamental civic freedom in Western society. But it is utterly intolerable that anybody – let alone a British subject – should be unsafe on the streets of London because they look “quite openly Jewish.”

The public square can certainly be tolerant of a great range of political and religious groups, but it can’t be neutral.

Jewish organizations have warned that pro-Palestinian marches in London have featured anti-Semitic chants and slogans since October. Signs have been reported with the slogan, “Welcome to Gaza, twinned with Auschwitz.” Marchers have screamed the so-called Khaybar Chant: Khaybar, Khaybar, ya yahud! Jaish Muhammad soufa yaʿoud!(“Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the army of Muhammad will return”). The chant refers to Muhammad’s slaughter of purportedly treacherous Jewish allies at the Battle of Khaybar. It is an implicit threat of Islamist violence against Jews – notably, it is not restricted to Israeli “occupiers.” Nor does it claim to represent any supposedly secular or inclusive Palestinian future. For Islamists, this is the subtext of “From the River to the Sea.”

The real shock of the April 13th video, though, is not the perceived threat of Islamist anti-Semitic violence. That we are used to. Instead, it is that a British police officer, an agent of the state, seems to suggest that being “quite openly Jewish” is unacceptable on the streets of a major Western city.

It is important not to be sensationalist here. The police officer, though his choice of words is highly dubious, was clearly motivated more by concern for Falter’s personal safety than by any personal or official anti-Semitism. There is no serious suggestion that the officer is himself a dangerous bigot.

Secondly, a much longer video has since emerged. Mr. Falter was certainly attempting to access the pro-Palestinian protest, with companions of his own. At one point he confronts the police officer, saying, “The Metropolitan police says these marches are completely safe for Jews, there is no problem whatsoever.”Falter seems keen to test this hypothesis. This is presumably in connection with his work as chief executive of the Campaign Against Antisemitism. We might consider this brave, or imprudent, or needlessly provocative. It might even be all three.

None of this excuses what happened. It seems to be a pretty clear implicit admission that a significant proportion of the protestors might be violent anti-Semites.

Again, let’s be clear: peaceful protest is legal. Lots of the protestors will have perfectly legitimate concerns about civilian casualties in Gaza. A few of them would no doubt also march for Ukraine, or deplore the use of violence by thuggish, murderous regimes from Beijing to Baku.

But, apparently, not all of them. Clearly the London Metropolitan Police are aware that there is a real presence in these protests of an anti-Semitic, Islamist element. The kind who from time-to-time chant Khaybar, Khaybar, ya yahud!

How can these weekly protests be allowed to continue, at least in their current form, if this is the case? If another weekly political protest came with the serious threat of racist or religious violence, would it be allowed to continue? It seems hard to believe that any large-scale march which came with a regular risk of white supremacist chanting or violence would long be tolerated on the streets of Britain’s capital.

Restoring Public Spaces:

Western societies need to realize – need to remember what we all once knew – that peace, order, and lawful freedoms all need to be actively and publicly maintained. This maintenance needs to come from the state, from civil society, and from all citizens as free individuals. We can no longer afford that tired old liberal myth of a neutral public space.

We cannot pretend that there is no difference between peaceful protests and those which come with a threat of Islamist violence. We cannot pretend that there is no difference between different conceptions of the good, of the just society, of human dignity.

We cannot be blind to the way that some Islamist groups – Hamas and Al-Quds supporters among them – have a pretty good grasp of how to wield power in the public square. They know how to exert pressure on agents of the state, and how to project political strength on the streets. This isn’t a naive phenomenon.

Islamism is a world where the minaret towers over all. It’s the burka’s flowing tendrils blanketing women like an invasive vine in a once-flourishing garden. It’s the gathering in the square that proclaims “this is our space now.” It’s the adhan blasted loudly at the Christian or Jewish – or secular! – part of town. Until, one day, there are no non-Muslim parts of town left. The Christians of Istanbul and the Jews of Baghdad found this out the hard way. I pray the monied agnostics of Mayfair and Chelsea never do.

And they may not have to! That is, perhaps the British state can learn to differentiate between legitimate protests (however misguided), and marches that proclaim conquest.

The West needs to recover and to actively, publicly promote some basic ideas about our shared public peace. About the common allegiances and responsibilities of citizens. The public square can certainly be tolerant of a great range of political and religious groups, but it can’t be neutral. Attempted public neutrality is a vacuum that less-than-benevolent groups are always ready to fill.

In a free and democratic society, the day-to-day politics of domestic government, foreign activities, finance, etc., must constantly be debated. This is right and just. But at the same time, Western democracies must demand – in the public square – loyalty not to wispy, vague ideas of procedural neutrality and skin-deep inclusivity. Instead, we need to be a lot better at articulating the importance of public peace, the legitimate authority of our states, mutual fraternity with our fellow citizens, respect for the law, and the dignity of all human beings.

This isn’t a big ask, and it isn’t bigotedly intolerant. A country can be sure of itself and of its fundamental requirements, and still accept newcomers or visitors. Bluntly, people should normally be free to protest against a government’s foreign policy, or to stand in solidarity with those they think are oppressed overseas. But the political deal needs to be clearer, and straightforwardly articulated: the rejection of intimidation, violence, anti-Semitic extremism, and the pursuit of power by unconstitutional means. It’s the difference between having a law-abiding, European-style social democratic party in a country’s parliament, and tolerating organized political violence or state espionage by Communist groups. Western states sometimes benefit from the former, but must have the self-assurance to stamp out the latter.

If we don’t get better at doing this, our public square will be more and more vulnerable to hostile takeover. The present moment is a canary in the coal mine. If we don’t get better at doing this, we risk seeing more of our fellow citizens grimly warned of the dangers of being “openly Jewish.”

This week, third party presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. added to his portfolio on the abortion issue. He offers some items that pro-lifers would agree with, some they would not.

But what cannot be missed is that there is no backing off from his promise to “safeguard women’s reproductive rights.”

Ryan Foley, who writes for the Christian Post headlined his story “RFK Jr. unveils new abortion platform: ‘More choices, more life.”’ He talked with pro-life leaders, including NRL President Carol Tobias.

Mrs. Tobias pulled no punches. She told Foley

“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. supports unlimited abortion throughout pregnancy and he wants taxpayer dollars to pay for it. He does not believe states should be able to protect preborn children at any stage of development and supports tax funding of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion chain.”

LifeNews is on TruthSocial. Please follow us here.

“It is hypocritical, then, to pretend to care about helping women in difficult circumstances when those same women are being encouraged by a culture that tells them to kill their children. Far better are the candidates who care about, and are willing to help, both mother and child.”

National Right to Life outlined Kennedy’s position on abortion at “Where Does Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Stand on Abortion?” here.

Foley wrote about Kennedy’s possible impact on the presidential race:

The RealClearPolitics average of polls asking voters who they would support in a five-way race, based on surveys taken from March 27-April 18, shows Kennedy capturing 8.8% of the vote, coming in far behind Trump’s 41.6% and Biden’s 40.6%, while finishing ahead of independent candidate Cornel West’s 1.7% and potential Green Party nominee Jill Stein’s 1.0%.

LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.

The post Robert F. Kennedy Jr Supports Abortions Up to Birth at Taxpayer Expense appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Charges in London warehouse fire are the first under the new National Security Act

British authorities have pressed charges for the first time under the National Security Act introduced last year, accusing a Leicestershire man of organizing two arson attacks on behalf of Russian intelligence, UK media revealed on Friday.

Judge Daniel Sternberg of the Westminster Magistrates Court has also lifted reporting restrictions imposed on April 20, allowing news outlets to identify the suspects and the charges against them.

The government claims 20-year-old Dylan Earl of Elmesthorpe acted as a “conduit” for Russian intelligence and recruited men to set fire to two warehouses in east London last month.

“He was recruited online by those acting on behalf of Russia and the terrorist organization the Wagner Group to recruit others and engage in malign activity,” Prosecutor David Cawthorne told reporters. “The arson which caused a significant fire in a commercial premises was intended to send out the message that if you assist Ukraine there will be punishment to follow.”

London designated the Wagner Group as a terrorist organization last September – a month after the outfit’s head, Russian businessman Evgeny Prigozhin, perished in a plane crash. Any evidence of Earl’s connection to Wagner or Russia has yet to be presented.

Two units of an industrial park in Leyton were damaged by fire on March 21. It took eight fire engines and 60 firefighters to put out the blaze, according to the media. Prosecutors said the fire was set deliberately, using gasoline as an accelerant.

While the charging documents did not specify who owned the warehouses that burned up, company records identified them as Oddisey and Meest UK, parcel delivery services owned by British-Ukrainian businessman Mikhail Prikhodko and his wife Jelena Boikova.

“This is a highly significant moment and investigation for us,” said Commander Dominic Murphy, the head of the Metropolitan Police’s counter-terrorism command, noting that it was “the first time that we have arrested, and now charged anyone using the powers and legislation brought in under the National Security Act.”

In addition to Dylan Earl, the NSA was invoked against Jake Reeves, 22, of Croydon, for allegedly “agreeing to accept a material benefit from a foreign intelligence service.” 

Reeves was also charged with aggravated arson, along with Paul English, 60, of Roehampton and Nii Kojo Mensah, 21, of Thornton Heath.

The fifth defendant in the case was identified as 22-year-old Dmitrijus Paulauska, a friend of Reeves from Croydon, who was charged with having information about terrorist acts but not reporting it to the authorities. 

All five men are scheduled to appear for a hearing at the Old Bailey on May 10. They have not yet entered any pleas in the case. According to Murphy, the investigation “remains ongoing.”

Novus Ordo priest blasts Ultramontanism as ‘heresy’…

That Dreaded Specter of ‘Ultramontanism’:
Response to Fr. Jeffrey Kirby, STD

When the ghost of Ultramontanism looms, who ya gonna call?

The Rev. Jeffrey F. Kirby (b. 1975) is a Novus Ordo priest in the diocese of Charleston, South Carolina.

The biographical blurb on his personal web site describes him as

a Catholic priest, moral theologian, and Papal Missionary of Mercy. He serves as the Pastor of Our Lady of Grace Parish in Indian Land, South Carolina and is an Adjunct Professor of Theology at Belmont Abbey College. He has author [sic] several books and digital programs on the moral and spiritual traditions of the Catholic Church.

(Remember when they spun off the EV unit as a separate company because they knew they couldn’t take these losses on the main books? Let me do the math for you: They lost $130,000 on every unit sold. -nvp)

CNN – Ford’s electric vehicle unit reported that losses soared in the first quarter to $1.3 billion. The EV unit sold 10,000 vehicles in the first three months of the year. That number was down 20% from the amount of electric vehicles it sold a year earlier.

Ford, like many other automakers, has announced plans to shift from traditional gas-powered vehicles to electric vehicles in the coming years.

Ford is the only traditional automaker to break out results of its EV sales.

Ford’s CEO said the company is making changes in its electric vehicle business that will allow it to be profitable in the near future.

Meanwhile, Tesla reported that its adjusted earnings fell 48% in the first quarter as revenue dropped 9%.

https://www.azfamily.com/2024/04/25/ford-electric-vehicle-unit-reports-loss-every-vehicle-sold/

A group of 24 states is fighting a decision by Joe Biden to yank Oklahoma’s health care funds just because it’s pro-life.

Oklahoma has filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration for denying it federal health care funds because it refuses to use them to fund abortions. And almost half the states in the nation are coming to its defense.

As LifeNews reported previously, pro-life states’ efforts to expand essential health care to women and families are being thwarted by the very same people who accuse these states of failing to provide it. First, it was Texas, and then Oklahoma was denied funding to expand medical care to low-income women by Joe Biden’s administration.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rescinded a $4.5 million Title X grant to the Oklahoma State Department of Health to provide family planning services, such as birth control, counseling, STI testing and treatment, and other health services, to low-income individuals.

In May, HHS accused Oklahoma of being “out of compliance” with the family planning program and therefore ineligible for the grant money.

The reason: abortion.

Oklahoma protects unborn babies by banning elective abortions and taxpayer funding for abortions. But to receive the grant money, the Biden administration now requires states to promote abortions through abortion referrals.

SUPPORT LIFENEWS! To help us fight Joe Biden’s abortion agenda, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!

Oklahoma is fighting back with its lawsuit and 24 states are right behind it.

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch led a 24-State coalition in filing an amicus brief in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, supporting Oklahoma’s defense of its Title X-funded family health program.

“Oklahoma spent four decades serving families with a wide variety of important family health services,” said Attorney General Lynn Fitch, “and the Biden Administration’s decision to terminate funding for those services puts women, children, and families at risk across the State. Once again, the Biden Administration is putting politics over people. The President is openly flouting State and federal law, without regard for the very real-life consequences of his actions.”

On June 27, 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) terminated Oklahoma’s Title X funding because the State would not refer for abortions. Oklahoma’s Health Department had received this funding for 40 years and used it to provide family health services, including pregnancy testing and prevention, depression screening, and breast exams and cancer screening. Oklahoma provided these clinical and educational services through 87 county health sites and 8 contract agency sites in 70 of the State’s 77 counties.

As the Attorneys General state in their brief, “[T]he people of Oklahoma have decided generally to restrict elective abortions. They have also decided that no person in the State may be required to perform or participate in such abortions. Acting through their elected representatives, Oklahomans have decided that this approach appropriately balances the ‘legitimate interests’ in ‘prenatal life,’ ‘maternal health and safety,’ the ‘integrity of the medical profession,’ and more. Not all States balance (or view) the competing interests this way, but that is how the people of Oklahoma see them. And in our constitutional system, the decision on this hard issue is theirs.” (citations omitted)

The Attorneys General further note, “Because questions on abortion are so important, it is critical that the people decide them. Yet HHS seeks to rob the people of power to decide these questions for themselves by demanding, on pain of massive financial loss, that Oklahoma refer for abortions that defy the will of its people. That state of affairs departs from our constitutional order, which leaves the most important matters to the people.”

While Oklahoma’s appeal of HHS’s funding termination was pending, HHS announced a redirection of their funds to the out-of-state Missouri Family Health Council, which in turn awarded the bulk of the $4.5 million stripped from Oklahoma to Planned Parenthood Great Plains for its four centers in Oklahoma, which, according to their website, will provide, amongst other services, abortion referrals to their clinics in Kansas and gender-affirming care. HHS similarly terminated Tennessee’s fifty-year program and redirected its funds to the Virginia League for Planned Parenthood and its affiliates.

The Attorneys General of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming joined General Fitch in filing the amicus brief in Oklahoma v. HHS, which can be found here.

Atty General Fitch led a 23-state amicus brief in support of Tennessee’s Title X program earlier this month, as well.

Oklahoma State Attorney General Gentner Drummond said the Biden administration “is intent on punishing Oklahoma because we do not share its liberal philosophy.”

“It is patently discriminatory to deny Oklahoma these critical funds, particularly when federal law makes it clear that Title X cannot be used for abortion,” he said.

“I will continue to fight against federal overreach in all forms,” he added.

After Biden withdrew the funds, “HHS has chosen to prioritize abortion instead of prioritizing actual health care,” federal lawmakers from Oklahoma responded Thursday in a letter to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra.

The pro-life lawmakers said the Title X grants provide health care to about 30,000 people every year in Oklahoma, and revoking the funds puts their health at risk. Now, innocent people are “caught in the crossfire of HHS’ continued work to promote abortion,” they told the federal agency, according to The Federalist.

The letter, signed by U.S. Sens. James Lankford and Markwayne Mullin, and U.S. Reps. Josh Brecheen, Stephanie Bice, Kevin Hern, Frank Lucas and Tom Cole, demanded that HHS restore the funds and help Oklahomans access health care.

What’s more, they said the Biden administration based its defunding decision on its own “willfully ignorant” misinterpretation of federal law.

Title X funds are not supposed to be used for abortions. The program provides family planning services to low-income individuals, and the law states that grants may not be used “where abortion is a method of family planning.” In 2021, however, the Biden administration implemented a new rule that contradicts the law and requires Title X recipients to refer for abortions. A dozen states sued to challenge the pro-abortion rule, but it remains in effect.

Oklahoma lawmakers said their low-income residents shouldn’t be denied health care because their state protects unborn babies’ lives.

“Abortion is not family planning; it is family destruction,” they told Becerra. “Every abortion takes an unborn child’s life. Oklahoma’s laws protect women and unborn children from the violence of abortion in the interest of promoting families, keeping Oklahomans safe, and protecting life.”

Abortion activists and Democrats have been accusing pro-life states of providing inadequate health care and driving away doctors, but these very same people are trying to stop pro-life states from providing better health care to their residents.

Texas is another example. In 2022, the Biden administration denied a bipartisan request from the Texas Legislature to expand Medicaid for mothers of newborns.

Texas was the first state to protect unborn babies by banning most abortions in 2021. Now, the state bans all elective abortions, and pro-life advocates and lawmakers are working to expand support services for families in need.

Essential health care should be an issue that Republicans and Democrats, pro-life and pro-abortion activists can work together on. But the Biden administration is playing politics with people’s lives instead.

The post 24 States Fight Biden’s Decision to Yank Oklahoma’s Health Care Funds Because It’s Pro-Life appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Several pro-life pregnancy centers in Oklahoma are fighting back against one of the many pro-abortion items on Joe Biden’s agenda. Biden wants to force pregnancy centers to promote abortions instead of providing pregnant women with actual choices and options apart from ending their baby’s life.

Alliance Defending Freedom filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of several pro-life and religious medical associations Friday in State of Oklahoma v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

Senior Counsel Chris Schandevel told LifeNews that the case involves a Biden administration rule that requires recipients of federal Title X family-planning funds to counsel and refer women for abortions, even though multiple federal laws protect healthcare providers from being forced to participate in abortion if it violates their conscience and religious beliefs.

“Doctors and nurses should not be forced to violate their consciences and their religious beliefs as the price of practicing medicine—especially when those are the very beliefs that lead so many people to enter the healing profession. Healthcare professionals’ oath to ‘do no harm’ directly conflicts with abortion, which ends the life of the unborn child and harms the child’s mother,” he explained.

Please follow LifeNews on Rumble for the latest pro-life videos.

Schandevel told LifeNews: “The Biden administration’s Title X rule tries to force doctors and nurses to violate their professional duty to heal and provide life-affirming care to patients. We are urging the 10th Circuit to require the administration to restore Oklahoma’s critical Title X funding without unlawfully mandating that healthcare professionals violate their life-affirming beliefs.”

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond is also fighting for the state.

He is asking for a preliminary injunction against the Biden Administration for denying millions of dollars in funding to the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) to punish the state for being pro-life.

The motion comes two months after Drummond sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) after the agency suspended a family planning grant that OSDH has received for more than four decades. The administration took the Title X grant money from Oklahoma and Tennessee and instead gave it to pro-abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood.

The lawsuit emphasized that federal law stipulates that Title X funds cannot be “used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning” and that “Title X in no way requires abortion referrals for a State’s continued participation.”

Gov. Kevin Stitt emphasized his support for Oklahoma’s pro-life policies and said he supports Drummond’s motion.

“President Biden is playing political games with the health care needs of countless Oklahomans all because of our pro-family values. It’s wrong,” he said. “The State of Oklahoma won’t stand idly by while the Biden Administration holds millions of federal dollars hostage, and I applaud General Drummond for taking swift action to combat this outrageous abuse of power.”

Drummond said Oklahoma should not be punished for clashing with the Biden Administration’s agenda.

“I will not stand by while the overzealous Biden Administration attempts to harm Oklahomans in desperate need of healthcare services,” Drummond said. “Oklahoma should not be punished for having pro-life policies that clash with President Biden’s liberal agenda.”

Drummond said he is committed to restoring federal funds for their intended purpose. OSDH uses Title X funds for a range of services such as cancer screening, breast exams, depression screening and pregnancy prevention.

The post Pregnancy Centers Fight Back Against Biden Trying to Force Them to Promote Abortions appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The online influencer’s court date in Romania has not yet been set

A Bucharest court has moved to try Andrew Tate, the Anglo-American social media influencer, who has been charged with rape, human trafficking, and running a criminal gang to sexually exploit women.

Tate, 37, and his brother Tristan were arrested in December 2022. Both men were indicted last June, along with two Romanian women alleged to have been their accomplices. The accused have denied all charges and challenged the indictment.

However on Friday, the Bucharest Tribunal ruled it would allow the case to go forward, without setting a trial date. L

awyers for the Tate brothers have criticized the decsion to go to trial.

“The ruling issued by the preliminary chamber judge lacks legal basis and reasoning,” said Eugen Vidineac, “We have filed a strong appeal as we believe the ruling to be unlawful.”

Another attorney, Ioan Gliga, told AP that the arguments challenging the criminal investigation and the indictments “did not receive the necessary attention in the preliminary hearing,” but that the Tates’ defense was confident that the appeals court will rule in their favor.

READ MORE: Andrew Tate and brother arrested in Romania

The brothers were jailed for three months before being moved to house arrest. Since then, the courts have allowed them to move around Romania but denied their petition to travel within the EU.

Last month, Romania agreed to extradite the Tates to the UK over allegations of “sexual aggression” dating back to 2012-2015, but only after the domestic legal proceedings have concluded.

The online influencer’s court date in Romania has not yet been set

A Bucharest court has moved to try Andrew Tate, the Anglo-American social media influencer, who has been charged with rape, human trafficking, and running a criminal gang to sexually exploit women.

Tate, 37, and his brother Tristan were arrested in December 2022. Both men were indicted last June, along with two Romanian women alleged to have been their accomplices. The accused have denied all charges and challenged the indictment.

However on Friday, the Bucharest Tribunal ruled it would allow the case to go forward, without setting a trial date. L

awyers for the Tate brothers have criticized the decsion to go to trial.

“The ruling issued by the preliminary chamber judge lacks legal basis and reasoning,” said Eugen Vidineac, “We have filed a strong appeal as we believe the ruling to be unlawful.”

Another attorney, Ioan Gliga, told AP that the arguments challenging the criminal investigation and the indictments “did not receive the necessary attention in the preliminary hearing,” but that the Tates’ defense was confident that the appeals court will rule in their favor.

READ MORE: Andrew Tate and brother arrested in Romania

The brothers were jailed for three months before being moved to house arrest. Since then, the courts have allowed them to move around Romania but denied their petition to travel within the EU.

Last month, Romania agreed to extradite the Tates to the UK over allegations of “sexual aggression” dating back to 2012-2015, but only after the domestic legal proceedings have concluded.

Interceptor missiles will reportedly be sent, as there are no launchers to spare

Madrid will send Kiev missiles for the Patriot air defense system, due to intense pressure from the EU and NATO, the daily El Pais has reported, citing government sources.

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has demanded six US-made launchers from NATO, one of them being a Spanish system currently deployed to the Turkish-Syrian border, according to the outlet. Madrid has refused, but will instead transfer “a small number” of missiles to Kiev instead.

Spain operates only three Patriot batteries, purchased in used condition from Germany between 2004 and 2014. One of them has been deployed near the Turkish city of Adana since 2013, while the other two are in Valencia. One of those is actually being used to train Ukrainian soldiers in operating the system, El Pais said.

The newspaper’s sources did not say how many missiles Spain intended to send, only that Madrid keeps a “war reserve” of about fifty and that they are very expensive, costing about a million euros apiece. Spain is also planning to refurbish ten more Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks and send them to Ukraine, in addition to the ten delivered last year.

The Spanish Defense Ministry wants to buy four of the newest Patriot models, the PAC-3. Last October, the US greenlit the potential sale, valued at €2.6 billion ($2.78 billion), but the government in Madrid has not yet approved the contract. Under the best circumstances, the new batteries would not be available until 2028 at the earliest.

Supplying other air defense systems to Ukraine is “problematic,” according to the outlet, because Spain has none to spare. Madrid only has four NASAMS batteries, with one permanently stationed in Latvia and another on rotation in Estonia. Ammunition for the 12 Hawk launchers provided to Ukraine has long run out, as it is not being manufactured anymore. The Spanish government has already agreed to prioritize deliveries of domestically produced ammunition to Kiev, over replenishing the “almost empty” army arsenals, said El Pais.

Germany has just announced it would send another Patriot battery – the third so far – to Ukraine, while the Netherlands said it would be willing to fund the purchase of interceptors from third countries. Greece has been under pressure to send some of its Patriot launchers as well, though Athens has not yet given in.

Pressure on the European members of the US-led bloc has lessened somewhat after the US Congress passed the $61 billion bill to fund Ukraine, according to the Spanish daily.

Russia has repeatedly said that new deliveries of weapons to Ukraine won’t change the battlefield dynamic and will only result in more needless Ukrainian deaths. 

London’s espionage chief claims foreign states have been targeting UK universities

Academics and researchers at British universities will be vetted by the nation’s security services as part of government plans to crack down on alleged Chinese espionage, according to The Times.

The measures were reportedly announced following a meeting on Thursday between MI5 Director General Ken McCallum and the vice-chancellors of two dozen leading universities, including Oxford and Cambridge.

McCallum reportedly warned that hostile states are actively targeting universities to steal technology that can “deliver their authoritarian, military and commercial priorities.”

According to the M15 chief, a secret review into the vulnerabilities of the UK’s higher education sector has shown that countries like China are deploying both “overt and covert mechanisms” to “acquire intellectual property and steal advantage.”

Consultations are underway on a new system of government vetting that would see academics who have access to sensitive research face background checks by security services, according to the report.

The government will also be looking at new funding for higher education institutions to increase security around sensitive sites. Universities could also reportedly be required to consult with the security services when entering into funding partnerships and collaborations with foreign institutions.

Alicia Kearns, chairwoman of the foreign affairs select committee, said in a post on X that academia has for “too long” pretended it has “no role to play in our national security” and could operate “free from geo-strategic realities.”

“Significant evidence indicates a systematic attempt by the Chinese Communist Party to infiltrate British academia and exfiltrate critical research, capabilities and technologies,” she said.

Beijing has repeatedly denied any espionage-related accusations, branding them as “malicious smears.” Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said this week during a news briefing: “We would like to reiterate that the claim that China could be stealing UK intelligence is a groundless accusation and malicious smear, and we firmly oppose that accusation. Such malicious manipulation aimed at China should stop.”

MI5 had previously identified more than 50 Chinese college students enrolled at UK universities which it said were linked to the People’s Liberation Army, who have left the country in recent years as a result of a crackdown on what the spy agency described as the theft of defense-related technology and other sensitive research materials.

American evangelicals consider immigration, U.S. sovereignty, and abortion to be the top issues facing the nation heading into November’s election, according to a new survey. Coral Ridge Ministries recently published its 2024 “Spiritual State of the Union” survey results, polling American evangelicals on everything from the economy to religious liberty to the president’s approval rating.

One question asked was, “What are the three most critical issues facing the new Congress and administration?” Fifty-six percent of respondents named immigration as one of their top three, 33% named American sovereignty, and 32% named abortion. Immigration has consistently been a top concern for Americans in national polls, typically second only to inflation and the economy.

In comments to The Washington Stand, FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter said, “Given how severe the crisis at our country’s southern border is, and the creeping influence of unelected, unaccountable, international organizations on America’s sovereignty, it makes sense evangelical voters would prioritize these issues alongside defending the unborn when they go to vote on November 5.” He added, “I think evangelical voters, maybe more than any other voting group, understand what’s at stake when a nation turns from God.”

Carpenter also noted, “The shedding of innocent blood by abortion has always, and rightfully, been a priority for evangelical voters, but the elevation of border security, and the specter of American public health policy handed over to the World Health Organization — given everything we went through during COVID — makes sense.”

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

While abortion has generally been ranked as less of a priority in national polls, Coral Ridge Ministries’ survey shows that it is still top of mind for American evangelicals, a core voting bloc for the GOP. David Closson, director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council, told TWS, “Although polls consistently show that voters are concerned about the state of the economy and the border crisis, I’m not surprised that evangelical voters are still focused on abortion. Overturning Roe was never the ultimate goal of the pro-life movement. The final goal has always been to make abortion illegal and unthinkable.”

Noting that the U.S. Supreme Court’s dismantling of Roe v. Wade in 2022 “simply returned abortion legislation back to the people and their elected representatives,” Closson added, “At the end of the day, geography shouldn’t determine one’s right to life, which is why the 2024 elections are so important.” He continued, “In many states, abortion, through referendums and constitutional amendments, will be directly on the ballot. In the rest of the states, abortion will indirectly be on the ballot as voters choose between candidates with vastly different worldview related to abortion and the value of human life.”

The Coral Ridge Ministries survey results comes as Republican candidates, including presumptive GOP nominee and former President Donald Trump, have demurred on abortion, shifting their focus more heavily to the economy and border security while downplaying the federal government’s role in protecting unborn life.

Meanwhile, Democrats have dialed up abortion rhetoric in their 2024 campaigns. President Joe Biden has made abortion the centerpiece of his reelection campaign, including launching ads condemning pro-life legislation in states like Arizona. California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom has also funded ad campaigns across the country portraying pro-life laws in red states as oppressive and dystopian. Additionally, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has unveiled plans to capitalize on pro-abortion referendums in various states to claim more seats in the House of Representatives.

Other noteworthy findings in Coral Ridge Ministries’ survey include a mere 6% of American evangelicals affirmed that they trust Biden, while nearly 90% said they do not. Respondents also expressed concern over the weaponization of state and federal agencies to penalize or target, often under the auspices of “hate speech,” Christians for expressing a biblical worldview. Additionally, a majority opposed the LGBT agenda’s incursion into classrooms, expressing disapproval of transgenderism and homosexuality being included in sex education programs.

LifeNews Note: S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

The post Protecting Babies From Abortion is One of the Top Issues for Christian Voters appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The readings at daily Mass are focused on the first Missionary Journey of Paul and Barnabas. They are very Catholic and too informative to let pass without comment. It presents a highly organized Church, possessing some of the structures we know today in full form. Granted, some of these structures are in seminal (seed) form, but they are there.

We will also notice qualities of the original kerygma that are at variance with what some modern thinkers declare should be the methodology of the Church. The soft, cross-less Christianity of many today, who replace the cross with a pillow and insist on merely inclusion and affirmation, is strangely absent in this early setting.

Let’s look at the first reading from the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 14:21-27) and see the true path of priests, teachers, and leaders in the Church. Four steps are prescribed for our consideration. The Apostles went forth announcing, admonishing, appointing, and accounting.

I. Announcing – The text says, After Paul and Barnabas had proclaimed the good news to that city and made a considerable number of disciples …

Notice that happiness is linked to the harvest. Proclaiming the Good News, they yield a great harvest. As Catholics, we are not sent out to proclaim a mere list of duties. We are sent to proclaim the Gospel. And the Gospel is this: that God has loved the world and sent His Son, who by dying and rising from the dead has purchased for us a whole new life, free from sin and the rebellious obsessions of this world. He is victorious over all the death-directed and sinful drives of this present evil age. Simply put, He has triumphed over these forces and enabled us to walk in newness of life.

We are sent to announce a new life, a life set free from the bondage of sin, rebellion, sensuality, greed, lust, domination, and revenge. We are sent to announce a life of joy, confidence, purity, chastity, generosity, and devotion to the truth rooted in love.

Yes, here is a joyful announcement rooted in the cry Anastasis (Resurrection)! The old order of sin is gone and a new life of freedom from sin is here!

Did everyone accept this as good news? No. Some, indeed many, were offended and sought to convict Christians as “disturbers of the peace.” Some don’t like to have their sin and bondage called out as such. They prefer bondage, sin, and darkness to light, holiness, and freedom.

But at the end of the day, we as Catholics announce what is intrinsically good news and we ought to start proclaiming it with joy. We must announce it joyfully, as something wonderful, freeing, and true rather than sounding like bitter, angry people who are just trying to win an argument.

II. Admonishing – The text says, They returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch. They strengthened the spirits of the disciples and exhorted them to persevere in the faith, saying, “It is necessary for us to undergo many hardships to enter the kingdom of God.”

Notice first that preaching (teaching) is a process. You don’t just preach or teach once and move on; you return and reiterate. They are retracing their steps back through towns that they have already evangelized. They do not just come, have a tent revival, and then move on. They return and, as we shall see, they establish the Church.

Notice what they do:

1. Encourage – They strengthen the spirits of the disciples.
2. Exhort – They exhort them to persevere in the faith.
3. Explain – They explain by saying, “It is necessary for us to undergo many hardships to enter the kingdom of God.”

Let’s focus especially on the last the point. In effect, they announce and teach, “If you’re not willing to endure the cross, no crown will come your way. If you can’t stand a little disappointment sometimes, if you can’t stand being talked about sometimes, if you think you should always be up and never down, I’ve come to remind you, NO CROSS, NO CROWN.”

Yes, beware of cross-less Christianity. We do have good news to proclaim, but there is also the truth that we get to the resurrection and the glory through the Cross. There is a test in every testimony, a trial in every triumph. There are demands of discipleship, requirements for renewal, laws of love, and sufferings set forth for Saints.

Good preaching combines hardship and happiness in one message. It is a joy to follow in the footsteps of our Lord, who endured hostility, hardship, and the horrors of the Cross but triumphed over all of it, showing that the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God. Yes, He has caught the wise in their craftiness and shown that the thoughts of the wise of this world are futile (cf 1 Cor 3:20). He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them (paradoxically) by the Cross (cf Col 2:15).

Thus, Saints Paul and Barnabas announce the Cross, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (cf 1 Cor 1:23). Many today insist that the Church soft-pedal the Cross, saying that we should use “honey, not vinegar.” No can do. We joyfully announce and uphold the paradox of the Cross and must be willing to be a sign of contradiction to this world, which sees only pleasure and the indulgence of sinful drives as the way forward, which exalts freedom without truth or obedience, and calls good what God calls sinful.

Too many so-called Christian denominations have adopted the pillow as their image and a “give the people what they want” mentality. This is 180 degrees out of phase with the Cross.

The Catholic Church does not exist to reflect the views of her members, but to reflect the views of her founder and head, Jesus Christ. Jesus announced the Cross without ambiguity, saying as He went out to die, Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to me (John 12:31-32).

So we announce the Cross not merely as suffering, but as life, power, and love. It is possible, by the power of the Cross, to live without sin, to overcome rebellion, pride, lust, and greed. It is possible by the power of the Cross to learn to forgive and to live the truth in love.

And the world will hate us for this. But such hardships, such crosses are necessary preludes to the hallelujah of Heaven. The Church can do no less than to point to the Cross. The center of our faith is the Cross, not a pillow. The Cross is our only hope. Ave Crux! spes unica nostra!  (Hail O Cross! our only hope!)

Yes, the Church announces the Cross and admonishes a world obsessed with pleasure and passing, fake happiness.

III. Appointing – The text says, They appointed presbyters for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith. Then they traveled through Pisidia and reached Pamphylia. After proclaiming the word at Perga they went down to Attalia.

And thus we see the ordination of priest leaders in every place. “Priest” is just an English mispronunciation of “presbyter.” Paul and Barnabas did not simply go about vaguely preaching and then moving on. They established local churches with a structure of authority. The whole Pauline corpus of writings indicates a need to continue overseeing these local churches and to stay in touch with the priest leaders established to lead those churches.

Later, St. Paul spoke of the need for this structure in other texts, for example when he wrote to Titus,

This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint presbyters in every town as I directed you (Titus 1:5).

This appointment was done through the laying on of hands and today is called ordination. It was a way of establishing order and office in the Church to make sure that the work continued and that the Church was governed by order. This is why we call the Sacrament involved here the “Sacrament of Holy Orders.”

Note, too, that a critical task for leaders in the Church is to develop and train new leaders. Too many parishes depend on charismatic and gifted leaders and are left with a void rather than an ongoing ministry when those leaders die or must move on. This should not be so. Part of being a good leader is to train new leaders.

IV. Accounting – The text says, From there they sailed to Antioch, where they had been commended to the grace of God for the work they had now accomplished. And when they arrived, they called the church together and reported what God had done with them and how he had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles.

Note that Saints Paul and Barnabas are now returning to render an account of what they have done. Accountability is part of a healthy Church. Every priest should render an account to his bishop, and every bishop to his Metropolitan and to the Pope. Today’s ad limina visits of bishops to the Pope are the way this is done. Further, priests are accountable to their Ordinary through various mechanisms such as yearly reports and other meetings.

A further background to this text is that Paul and Barnabas are returning to Antioch because it was from there that they were sent forth by the local bishops and priests on this missionary task.

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off (Acts 13:2-3).

St. Paul was not the “lone ranger” some think him to be. He was sent and was accountable. As we read elsewhere,

But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days (Gal 1:15-18).

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain (Gal 2:1).

The preacher and teacher must be accountable: For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.” So each of us shall give account of himself to God (Rom 14:10-12).

And thus we see some paths for priests, preachers, teachers, and leaders. We must announce the Gospel as good news, with joy and confidence. We must admonish a world (and some Church members) obsessed with pleasures to embrace the Cross as our only hope. We must continue to develop, train, and appoint leaders to follow after us. And we must be accountable to one another.

A nice, quick portrait of some healthy traits for the Church!

The post A Directive for Church Leaders from the Acts of the Apostles appeared first on Community in Mission.