Bergoglio vs. Trump

A review of my article on Donald J. Trump written on the eve of the 2016 U.S. election, previewing this one

I shall attempt to briefly review the article I wrote on the eve of the last U.S. presidential election in 2016, and see how my expectations of candidate Trump compare with president Trump. It was difficult to understand why I titled it "There is none that calleth upon justice, neither is there any one that judgeth truly...". However, it didn't take me long to realise that I was in the phase of titling all my articles after Bible quotes. That didn't last long, sadly, but I might well pick it up again.

The quotes seem to have been directed at the U.S. bishops, for their attempts to muddy what should have been quite a clear option between a candidate who professed a preference for very many good things and had no intrinsic evils in his campaign platform, and one who promised all sorts of intrinsic evils in her campain, with none of the goods that Trump had.

Everything I wrote about Hillary Clinton applies equally to Joe Biden, except with Biden we have the extra scandal of him being Catholic. He is, of course, not Catholic in any meaningful sense, but as he has not been excommunicated and was baptised Catholic, we have to live with the fact that he can identify as such, as indeed can Bergoglio. That is what makes both Biden's and Bergoglio's preferences for perversions and evils that much more condemnable, and damnable.

In the article was a list of top 10 reasons to vote for Donald J. Trump. He won the elections, as it turned out. I rather expected him to do it, and truth be told I am even more confident that he will win it this time, once again defying the polls which seem even more fake this time than they did the last. As little enthuasiasm as there was for Clinton, there virtually none for Biden. At least she had the novelty of being the first female presidential candidate. With Biden, all they can muster is "At least he's not Trump." I do not dismiss that those who hate Trump do it fervently, but it is difficult to see how it translates into waiting in line possibly for hours, and possibly in the rain, in order to vote for a man one more than likely finds distasteful. In just over a day or so, we shall see if the disgust for Trump among the anti-Trumper's translates into votes for creey Joe and his ghoulish running mate.

For full disclosure, I must preface this by writing that I am not a particularly big fan of Donald Trump, though I do find him amusing. I am definitely not a NeverTrumper, but nor am I an AlwaysTrumper. I am, however, a NeverBiden, and cannot fathom what would ever possess me to vote for a man as morally distasteful as Biden. In other words, I think I can offer a relatively dispassionate analysis of Trump's record.

So, what will follow is a walk-through of my 10 points with grades on how right I was compared to Donald Trump's actual record. Given Trump's erratic nature and lack of interest in details, it can be difficult to know just how much blame or credit we can give him for his record. Still, he appoints his underlings and signs off on the checks, the bombings and the priorities. His record belongs to him, and if nothing else, it allows us to see where his priorities lie, whether he has met success in his endeavours or not.

The points will be in bold text, with the score next, and the analysis below. Mind you, this is an analysis of how I predicted, or thought I understeood, candidate Trump's versus how president Trump has actually done. Of course, my analysis has do do with his campaign pledges, so it cannot be entirely divorced from what he actually pledged, but still, it is not a grade of how president Trump has succeeded versus some impeccable standard of perfection.

1. Donald Trump  is not a career politician. He is a man who has built a fortune on hard work and taking risks, and done a good job at it. In fact, he has managed doing what I would argue 99.999% of the world wants to do in a much better way than 99.999% of the world has managed. (7/10)

More of a statement of fact than anything else and hardly gradeable. I would define a career politician as someone willing to do anything and rid himself of any principle to get to the very top, regardless of whether it is good for his country or not. That would score a 0, so 7/10 means I think Trump has not behaved as a career politican would. Sadly, however, on many of the big decisions - big banking, military-industrial complex, continuing wars - he has toed the line of the political schemers.

He has still managed to incur the wrath of many of the right people, and often by being unconventional, so I'll give him a pretty high grade and conclude that I was right in claiming that he didn't behave as a career politican.

2. The man seems genuine. When he speaks, one gets the impression that he means what he says, and not that he is saying it because pollsters told him it would be good to do so. (5/10)

If Trump had not shut the country down in March, he would probably have got an 8 on this point. However, shutting down a country on account of a 'pandemic' he obviously did not believe was going around simply because he thought it more politically expedient to do so will in many ways come to become his defining moment - at least of his first term, if he should lose the re-election bid.

The one good thing about Trump is that he is not a particularly convincing liar when reading off a script. It has therefore been quite easy...

Another dubia cardinal's death leaves us close to full suspicion mode - Sunday 3rd September to Saturday 9th of September

The major news this week was of course the death of Cardinal Caffara.

I must admit that my first reaction at the death of Cardinal Meisner was "Was it suspicious"? I did not even know the circumstances at the time but I found it strange that someone without any apparent illness could simply drop dead.

Fast forward 2 months later and we have the death of yet another cardinal, also in a surprising death and without any apparent illness.

I am already in semi-suspicion mode over this because I am convinced of the absolute malice of Bergoglio and those surrounding him. If any of the other 2 cardinals was to pass away I would go into full suspicion mode. Like they say in the Godfather, this would be the case even if he got struck by lightning!

We have been informed that Bergoglio had/has the dubia cardinals monitored, and this coming from Cardinal Caffara will have to be counted as the trustworthy given it was essentially the last testament of a dying man. If anything happens to either Cardinal Brandmüller or Cardinal Burke, then the whole Catholic world should rise up and demand an autopsy because we would be derelict in our duty to protect our brethren if we did not.

Not content with not answering the dubia, Bergoglio found time to issue new legislation regarding the translation of the Novus Ordo Missae. The message was loudly received and unambigious: Do what thou wilt! Now it is up to the local episcopal conferences to produce translations and for the Vatican to approve them, instead of the Vatican's liturgy commissions being in charge of the process.

It would seem he has given up on his plan of doctrinal devolution, so the next best thing is liturgical devolution. We need not wonder whether the motives were sinister or benign, as with Bergoglio they are always against the faith. It was nonetheless another demonstration that the only thing this oaf of a man does not have time is putting down 5 little words on a piece of paper in answer to the dubia.

Over at the Fatima Center, we had yet more traditionalist infighting. It is most unbecoming and I sure wish it would stop. It is rather tragic that there is so much infighting among those who agree on the basic premise: Fighting Vatican II and its spirits. At the very least we ought to ask those involved not to air their dirty linen in public.

One thing I shall say though is this: Among traditionalists, truth reigns supreme, and this is what gives this counter-revolution so much vigour. In that sense I can find it more irritating than off-putting, because the search of truth definitely involves troubling revelations, and that involves a certain amount of friction.

We also had news of North Korea testing the hydrogen bomb. My stand on the North Korean situation is  very clear: They have both the legal and moral right to pursue any means to defend their national sovereignty. North Korea is not a signatory to the non-proliferation nuclear treaty (NPT), nor is any country prohibited from testing missiles, and its security concerns are not unfounded given the U.S. world bombing tour seems to have put North Korea on its perfomance list. The leader of a country has a natural right and a natural obligation to protect the civilisation within his jurisdiction. Even awful morally decrepit countries have natural rights, and that applies just as much to the U.S. as it does to North Korea.

The U.N., of course, responded with a set of yet more illegal sanctions. It is unbecoming of Russia and China to allow the imposition of these sanctions, especially since the U.S. keeps imposing sanctions on even them at the same time. It is unfathomable to me just why the go along with this bullying given that they are both individually, and certainly combined, great enough powers to resist it.

On the other hand, of course both Russia and China have an interest in preventing more countries from joining the nuclear club, so maybe they secretly get what they want but end up looking good by not being the driving power behind what is clearly illegal actions on the part of the U.N. Security Council. Either way, it is unsightly to behold.

We also had a chance to witness the priorities of NOChurch when the bishops of the U.S. ligned up almost in unison to condemn Donald Trump on simply removing a provision which prevented, or at least downplayed, the enforcement of law, a law not exactly unjust since a country has a right to decide who gets to enter and under what conditions. Bergoglio, rather predictably, also got in on the grandstanding, and yet again showed his hypocrisy.

It was also interesting to see Bergoglio called an "attention whore", since I have previously expressed similar sentiment, and I even have a tag for it called "Bergoglio attention-whoring" . The article was by Mundabor, which comes as no big surprise but I don't recall him doing it earlier. Christopher Ferrara, in the piece linked to in that particular article, expounds on Bergoglio's fake magisterium and showcases more of his rap sheet in the interview book just recently released.

On a final note, the list of Bergoglio victims grows longer, with Professor Josef Seifert now added to the list. I suppose in these mad times, not being on the Bergolio hit-list is a sign that you are not doing your job in one sense or another and being on the hit-list is more often than not a mark of  honour. It is nonetheless remarkable how distinguished are those who have found themselves as victims of Bergoglio's dreadful pontificate. The non-arguments of those who percecute them are also interesting.

If I were high-profile or distinguished enough I might have ended up on that list, a point Roberto de...

Pages

Subscribe to Bergoglio vs. Trump