Donald Trump

A terrible force of destruction meets an immovable object - Early reactions to Correctio Filialis - Sunday 24th to Saturday 30th of September

It turns out that the Correctio Filialis de haeresibus propagatis was released at exactly midnight of September 24th, and not on September 23rd as I had previously written. What confused me was the fact that I went to Rorate Caeli shortly after midnight and found it there, and naturally assumed that it had been posted somewhat earlier. If we check their timestamp though it seemed to have been set for publication at exactly midnight. I had caught wind of something being released from reading Fr. John Hunwicke's post from the day before, in which he claimed that something big was expected on the Sunday. For that reason I was surprised to learn that it had been released before, or so I thought, and it didn't help that so many blogs I read put the 23rd on it.

Time zones help explain that confusion, because many of the blogs I follow are from the Western hemisphere, where it was still the 23rd on the day of publication. I would much rather use the Rome time since the document was meant for Rome, and since it was released on the 24th my time as well, so I'll henceforth refer to the 24th as the release date, but I digress, although...Distinctions Matter!

The phrase "an irresistible force meets an immovable object" is I believe quite common in weather-speak and I believe it is used when a weather front meets a mountain area or some such thing. In my particulary context, it obviously refers to Bergoglio and while he has been immovable in his obstinacy against Catholic doctrine and practice, in this particular analogy he predictably plays the part of "a terrible force of destruction" with the signatoris of Correction Filialis acting as representatives of the immovable object that is the deposit of faith.

For my part I acquired it from "The Dark Knight" - one of the best movies ever made, by the way, and unquestionably one of the most well-made, if not the ouright winner of that particular category. In the final confrontation with the Joker, Batman saves him from an untimely death out of moral principle, despite spending most of the movie actually trying to stop him, at great danger to his own life and that of others. In that particular scene, the Joker says "this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object".

My memory tweaked it a bit to read "terrible force of destruction" but I'll stick to that terminology since Bergoglio is unstoppable only on account of the timidity of the hierarchy of the Church, along with the complicity of many modernists in the Catholic establishment at large. He is by no means unstoppable, but that he is a terribe force of destruction I deem indisputable.

The more I think about it, the more I realise just how numerous are the similarities between Bergoglio and the Joker as portrayed in that film. Some time, I might get around to writing about that.

In any case, the correction was an attempt to stop Bergoglio's seemingly unstoppable march towards the destruction of what remains of the Catholic edifice. For what it's worth I don't think he will succeed with or without the correction, but the correction is a huge stumbling block. This has been proved very clearly as Bergoglio's enablers and attack hounds have had no other course but to attack the signatories in defence of Amoris Laetitia, and not the content of the correction itself.

Some have pointed out that there is nothing in the correction which shows that Amoris Laetitia actually teaches heresy, completely bypassing, it seems, the main charge of the signatories, which is that in his words and his deeds since the publication of Amoris Laeitia, Bergoglio has encouraged heretical readings of it (an already dubious text at best), in turn propagating heresies. If you're going to critique a document, the least you can do is read it and attack what the document actually asserts.

Others have pointed out that the number of signatories is small, the hypocrisy of which one writer, I believe on Rorate Caeli, took exception. He notes that the Bergoglio party has spent the better part of 5 years (and 5 long long years, I hasten to add) intimidating those who disagree with the dangerous direction this horrendous pontificate has taken us, only to point to the number of his opponents being small as proof that the majority is not with the opposition. We remember, by the way, that Bergoglio speaks constantly of dialogue and parrhesia, all the while either threatening or ignoring those who actually attempt to dialogue with him. It seeems hypocrisy is his only mode.

The most ingenious and at the same time non-sensical defence of Amoris Laetitia is that it is all due to a mistranslation! They claim that the whole furore was due to a mistranlation of the Latin. You couldn't make this stuff up!

Christopher Ferrara took dissected this ridiculous claim  at the Remnant. I suppose their implicit claim is that Bergoglio is somehow a Latinist who wrote the whole thing up in Latin, no doubt in their mind consulting the great treasure of Latin writings that the Church possesses. This is a staggering claim, in defending a man whose grasp of Italian evidently is as incompetent as his grasp of Spanish. No matter which language he speaks hardly anybody can figure out what he actually said. I suppose Latin being his primary language might explain why nobody understands him when he speaks any other language, but we are left with the small issue that the official Latin version of Amoris Laetitia was only published in July of this year, well more than a year after the original publication of Amoris Laetitia, and that the document itself was probably written in Spanish, given the large input of Tucho 'art of kissing' Fernandez, the ghostwrite and brains -...

The doomsday that wasn't, but could still spell doom for Bergoglio - Sunday 17th to Saturday 23rd of September

There was great apprehension about what was going to happen on the 23rd of September, 2017. This was on account of an astrological constellation which only appears about once every 7,000 years,  something about 12 stars being aligned in a particular way, with possibly a planet or a 12th star above them. This alluded to the scriptural passage in Revelation, which is taken to refer to the Virgin Mary having the stars under her feet.

The day came and I did not notice anything. The world did not end and life went on as normal, or so it would seem...

What transpired was that a group of established Catholic scholars released a filial correction of Bergoglio, urging him to denouce the heresies which have spread like wildfire on account of Amoris Laetitia. It was titled "Correctio Filialis de haeresibus propagatis". Since I first read it on the 24th of September and much of the fallout has come since them, I intend to cover this document and surrounding events as part of the analysis of the following week.

I would like, however, to point out that the truth is out: Bergoglio is an unrepentant heretic and the whole world knows that prominent Catholics are onto him.

Over on the other side of the pond we had the whole hoopla about kneeling. It evidently began on Friday in a speech held by Trump in Alabama in which he called the kneeling players "son of a bitch", "sons of bitches" or both. Here was a point at which the media could have acted as a uniting force, criticising Donald Trump for his choice of words while villifying the players for their actions. Instead, the media chose to make Donald Trump out as some kind of nutcase who wanting his country's flag respected.

At best, this whole kneeling thing is a distraction from real issues, so I'll not waste too much time on it. Suffice it to write that Donald Trump is right on the substance.

I have always found it ridiculous that in the U.S. they play the national anthem before sporting events. It has a very Orwellian feel about it: "Fun, brought to you by the state". I would much rather see that kind of nonsense abolished altogether. There is also a deeply unhealthy and psychotic association of the flag of the U.S. with the military, which is just another of the many absurd tenets of the americanist religion.

Nonetheless, it is good decorum to stand up for one's national anthem, and frankly, even those of other nations. It is a simple mark of respect , shallow as it may be. It shows a lack of class to show disrespect to one's country if one chooses the singing of the national anthem as the moment of personal protest.

I would remiss if I did not take this opportunity to take a shot at the Novus Ordo. No doubt many of those upset at this kind of behaviour are Catholics of the Novus Ordo persuasion. Many of them will be church-goers. I submit that it is far more disrespectful to fail to observe basic Christian dress codes in church than to kneel when the national anthem is being sung and anybody who fails to observe the former has no right whatsoever to criticise those who fail to observe the latter.

This is specifically aimed at women who refuse to cover their heads, as I have never seen a non-Muslim man in a Catholic church with head-covering, not even in clown masses - and any Muslim man invited into a Catholic Church for feel-good purposes has every right to disrespect those who invite him. The rules are apostolic and very clear and very simple: Women, head-covering; men, no head-cover. There is no 5-year old of ordinary capacity who would not be able to understand and apply those rules if so required, so I am at a loss to understand why Catholic women nowadays find it so impossible to grasp or apply.

It would certainly seem as though divinely-inspired apostolic commands such as those deserve far more respect than standing before a national anthem, whether it is being played in or out of place, as the case may be when national anthems are played before domestic sporting contests.

Speaking of distractions, although more positively-charged ones, we  had note that the awful Lady Gaga was going through somewhat of a spritual/mental crisis and had even postponed her tour. I only mention this because a while back I had mentioned that she was Catholic after having read it. My statemet was something akin to "you wouldn't know she is Catholic and she even goes to Church, sometimes". I had seen a picture of her with her parish priest, in which the parish priest was defending her from what he thought was uncharitable accusations. The point of this story is that I had almost started to wonder whether I had imagined the whole thing, until she posted a picture of herself holding a Rosary as she goes through trying times.

She wrote that she had sold her soul to the illuminati and that her fibromyalgia was the price she was now paying for it. I am sure I am joined by many fellow Catholics in hoping that this wretched woman who nonetheless still seems to cling to some notion of God and some notion of the Catholic faith finds the peace which only God can provide. We should all pray that she can turn her back on all her wicked and blasphemous ways because  it would seem as though deep under all that filth there is a sensitive soul crying towards the LORD, and honestly wishing to find Him.

It is a mark of the Novus Ordo that we have so many crypto-Catholics, which is to say, people who one would never assume were Catholic at all until they all of a sudden claimed to be.  NOChurch seems intent on promoting the notion that...

Streetfighting and the Alt-Right as the decepticons and false oppositions - Sunday 13th of August to Saturday 19th of August

Like most people, I have been left somewhat perplexed at how quickly the divisions in the U.S. have metastasised into the sorts of flares which in many countries are the prelude to violent revolution, in almost all cases as part of orchestrated political revolutions. I have no doubt that the leftist violence we see is pre-planned and directed towards a politcal end. Some have claimed that there are paid actors, but I am more sceptical, believing that there is not exactly a shortage of stupid leftists who are itching for a fight.

This event took place last week, but the fallout took place mainly during this week, so it is worth taking time to address it.

First the facts: I don't have all of them, so we shall have to dispense with a factual reading.

The only facts I do have and the only one that is relevant:

  • The protest was over removing a statue of what I understand to be the greatest general of the Confederate army, Robert E. Lee.
  •  The protest over removing the statue was legal and had a permit.
  • Among those protesting was a contingent of white supremacists of various sorts, and how large they were in proportion to the rest I honestly have no doubt, nor have I bothered to check. They might all have been white supremacists, or they may have been 1%. It really is irrelevant.

Nobody can with any credibility label me a white supremacist, so I can with full confidence state that those protesting over the removal of the statue were not to blame - not one bit. Let's call them statuists, because it seems very offensive to the truth to label them all white supremacists.

The violence was initiated by the left, as is par for the course, and the statuists retaliated. Many of the statuists, and perhaps of these a greater number were white supremacists, came armed, and that proved wise as the police did nothing to police the rally. That is perfectly understandable, and would prove wise, given that they were attacked, and given that the leftists in the U.S. have been using violence for well over 2 years now to shut down any debate regarding any substantive issue. We saw this at the Trump rallies with various leftists groups, and we have seen this violence at universities. One would have expected the leftists to attack the rally violently, so it is no surprise that the statuists were prepared for confrontation.

The leftists had no permit, so their protest was illegal. If they wanted to avoid violence they could easily have applied for a permit and held their rally at a later date, instead of focusing all their attention on a legal rally. The police were clearly given orders not to police the rally so that the violence would be visible for all. There are 2 possible reasons for this, the one being that the politicans are in favour of leftist violence, and the other being that they are in favour of any violence which creates social unrest in the U.S. which will enable them to have some sort of political machination against Donald Trump.

It is a running joke by me, and one I picked up from CrossTalk on Russia Today, that the only reason that Trump is still president is that the U.S. does not have an embassy in Washington. In other words, what we are seeing in the U.S. is an orchestrated campaign to create chaos in order to legitimise regime change, from exactly the same playbook that we have seen used in Ukraine (twice), Egypt, Kenya, Syria, Libya, Iran, Yugoslavia and Greece, to name but a few. It is probably the same book playing out in Venezuela now, although in Venezuela's case, the collapse of the country has absolutely everything to do with the socialist policies of the rules than anything else, so although it would seem the U.S. is formenting chaos, we would probably have seen the chaos regardless.

In any case, Trump had every right in the world to state that the violence was on "many sides", although a more truthful account would have pinned the initiation of the violence firmly on the leftists.

This brings me to the case of the Alt-Right, who are clearly playing the role of false opposition in all of this. While I am not sure that the leftist protesters were paid vandalisers, I am less sceptical about those 'white supremacists' being paid actors.

An article on The Remnant chronicled the meteoric media-driven rise of a prominent member of this group, and one issue which perplexed them was how it has come to be that this 'movement' and its leaders have received so much free publicity when the media completely ignores the Catholic opposition and in fact any principled opposition. In fact, we saw it with Ron Paul: What the media wants silenced it ignores.

It also questioned the credibility of many of its leaders, who seem to have come out of nowhere and who seem to have had leftist leanings. None of them are particularly interested in public or private morality, and for the most part they seem to be leftists who detest non-white people, but who are perfectly okay with leftists policies on the whole, apart from, perhaps, wholesale confiscation of private property, communism-style.

It seems at least plausible to me that the Alt-Right is a false opposition movement designed either to:

  • Discredit the movement on which Donald Trump rode to his presidency
  • De-Christianise the opposition to the political elite by making the oppostion seem abominable, and therely alieaning Christians
  • Absorb all the evil of the general leftist trend of the society into a movement which seems to oppose it at first sight, but which in practice does not
  • Distract media attention from the issues on which Trump vowed to focus
  • Divert political attention towards sideshows and force Donald Trump into neo-con policies abroad in order to focus American attention away from domestic
  • ...

Sanctions and excommunications for everybody for no reason! - Sunday 30th July to Saturday 5th of August

We had news of a Colombian professor , José Galat, who was excommunicated for criticising Bergoglio and raising questions about the legitimacy of his papacy. If we leave aside the fact that the man didn't actually utter any heresy, and contrast this with the fact that heretics abound against whom nothing is done, we are still left with the issue of the bishops of Colombia effectively making something which ought to be legitimately debatable forbidden to speak about.

The fact is that we have 2 people who wear white in the Vatican. The fact is that one of them resigned under very suspicious conditions. The fact is that the other was elected under very suspicious conditions. There is also the fact that Bergoglio has issued numerous and repeated statements which are impious and heretical. Then we have the multiple prophecies which warn about false shepherds, including false popes.

It is difficult to see why somebody should be excommunicated about this when doubts about Bergoglio are perfectly legitimate, but then again it's difficult to find much of anything which makes sense in NOChurch.

I wrote about this in one of my daily comments.

Not to be left behind on the irrationality race, the U.S. political establishment issued new sanctions against Russia, Iran, Syria and North Korea, sanctions which Donald Trump signed into law this week.

Let it be clear that sanctions are considered acts of war! Let it also be clear that none of the countries here have done anything illegal, and that includes North Korea - which having pulled out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is free to pursue nuclear weapons, and as a sovereign state has an unassailable right to develop missile technology! Let it also be clear that they were all bunched together to create the impression that there is the same sinister thread in all of them!

The sanctions on Russian in particular would seem to be nothing more than protectionist measures, something even the Europeans have realised. They claim they will take measuers against the U.S. if these sanctions harm its economic interests. We should not feel sorry for the EU, of course, given that it is not opposing the immorality of sanctions but rather that they were imposed without their involvement, denying them the chance to make sure that while harming Russia, their companies are not harmed. My understanding is that also within 2 days of these sanctions against Russia, the EU imposed other sanctions of its own against Mother Russia.

The sanctions againsty Iran seem to be even more sinister, as even Donald Trump has admitted that Iran has complied with the nuclear deal they signed some 2 years ago or so, the one good thing that the previous evil regime of the U.S. did.

I sometimes have difficulty deciding whether Trump does these things because he believes the lies he is told or because he feels helpless. Either way, he has made himself seem even more helpless as these sanctions tie his hands if he ever wanted to improve relations with Russia, who themselves have seen fit to finally expel U.S. diplomats from Russia, some 8 months after the U.S. expelled Russian diplomats from the U.S. on the same false premises. He could have refused to sign the bill, in which case it would have gone into law anyway as it was veto-proof, but at least he would have signalled his independence.

By signing them he essentially proves himself either a hostage or a stooge of the political establishment, the very swamp he vowed to drain. If he thinks that making bad compromises will help him then he is greatly deluded.

Finally, some football news and a world record transfer of €222 million. I must admit I didn't think it would happen and probably the selling club never actually thought the clause would be met. I commented on this on the day it broke, and I'll briefly restate my comments here.

Though I do not bother reading much from secular newspapers, no doubt there are those decrying the amount of money in football. The statement "they make milions while hospital nurses make much less" is not unusual, as if there are not easily-understandable explanations as to why this is the case.

All the same, if you have something against the money involved - and I must admit to being repulsed by it - just remember that it is €200 million less for ISIS and other jihadists. It is not as though the Qataris were going to use the money to fund a raft of Catholic orphanages around the globe, after all. Neither were they likely to use the money to help their poor fellow Yemeni Arabs who are being bombed to smitherines by Saudi Arabia and its Western allies. This is probably the least harmful way the were going to spend the money.

 

A poster-boy for the culture of death - Sunday 23rd to Saturday 29th of July

There is really only one place to start in a review of this week, and that is with the most tragic death - in the true meaning of the word tragic - of Charlie Gard. This is one of the saddest and certainly most frightening stories that I have come to know in all of Western history.

If my understanding of the facts is correct, this is what happened:

  • An unwed couple gives birth to a boy with a rare genetic defect, untreatable to date.
  • The doctors decide that the boy's disease is so serious that he will not survive and they want to turn off the life support.
  • The parents then say that he should be able to die at home, in the loving embrace of a loving home instead of a sterile hospital.
  • The hospital refuses to discharge him insisting that he must die there.
  • The parents file a suit to bring him home.
  • The hospital challenges this.
  • In the meantime, this case has brought enough international attention to it that a doctor working in the U.S. proposes to have him flown there for further treatment, insisting that there is a slight chance that he could lead a relatively normal life if the treatment works.
  • The hospital still refuses to dismiss him. The courts still agree.
  • The parents have in the meantime managed to raise the money required to take him to the U.S., almost $2 million at the time of the boy's death.
  • The high court rules that the hospital can keep him.
  • The parents keep fighting.
  • The parents appeal to the EU.
  • The European Court refuses to hear the case.
  • Trump and Bergoglio get involved, with the former saying he is willing to fly the child to the U.S. for help and the latter that he is willing to have him flown to Rome.
  • The court case drags on.
  • The parents give up, having had the U.S. doctor fly in to the U.K. to physically examine the boy and with the doctor concluding that too much time has passed without treatment for there to be any hope. Had the treatment come earlier his chances might have been good.
  • The parents still want to take him to die.
  • The hospital refuses to do that and finally...
  • Little Charlie Gard dies in a sterile and cold hospital, surrounded by his parents.

I'll have to admit that I didn't really follow this story from the start, so some of the details and timeline might be a bit off, but I think I have captured the gist of it.

My readers can rest assured that I shall not insult their intelligence by even entertaining the idea that the state of the U.K. could at any time in these proceedings have been interested in the well-being of Charlie Gard. So we must look at why the state fought so hard to make sure that little Charlie Gard died in a hospital and was prevented from leaving the country to seek treatment elsewhere.

Beneath all the headlines, the principles that the U.K., and EU were fighting for are not that difficult to piece out. They are that the government:

  • Has an absolute right to decide who gets to live or die, depending on what they deem to be a worthy life.
  • Has supreme rights which trump parental rights - primarily the parents' rights to decide what is best for the child. This is in spite of the fact that nobody in the governent will mourn for the child, hold a wake for him, or even attend their funeral - that is, assuming they are generous enough to release the body from the hospital for burial.
  • Decides when you die.
  • Decides where  you die.

I'll simply point out that the reason for keeping him a prisoner instead of releasing him abroad for treatment was because the hospital decided that his life, even if the treatment had worked, would not have been worth living. In other words, if the government determines that your quality of life is low enough, it can keep you locked up in a hospital, preventing  you from seeking treatment from a doctor of your choice anywhere else, and depriving you of any life support.

How is this any different than the most despotic and evil regimes frequently brought up in these conversations? Is it not always the case that the principal at stake for these regimes, and what made their evil snowball, was the very idea that the government assumed the power to decide which lives were worthy of not killing and which ones could be disposed of?

If this doesn't sum up the culture of death, it's hard to think what does. The most startling thing is that the very premise that the government decides what is a life worth living based on its subjective quality measure was not even challenged, as far as I could tell. It has become so ingrained in us that the governnment has absolute power of all within its borders that nobody even notices when a fundamental right is at stake.

I mean, it's so obvious that the government was morally wrong that even Bergoglio intervened on the side of Charlie Gard! In other words, he must have seen it as a very safe space for grandstanding, this being the man who tells us not to obsess with the killing of the unborn, after all.

This is what 3 generations of legal killing of the unborn has led to. We have a society in which children can be killed in plain sight with nobody batting an eyelid. Yes, I know he died naturally, but in preventing him from seeking medical aid which could have saved his life, the government in effect murdered him.

The only other issue of any note is Donald Trump re-introducing the ban on transexuals in the military. What is common sense in every non-Western countries, and what would have been common sense in any country bar none just...

Chronicling a whole month's travels worth of bad news - Sunday 11th of June to Saturday 15th of July

I have been travelling quite a lot over the past month, which is why I was not able to provide a weekly update. In truth, my travel began on the week starting on the Sunday of the 18th of June, but as I don't recall much of what happened that week, I'll lump that week together with the rest.

On my travels I hope to write more of in at least 2 separate posts, but the long road trip was very much enjoyable and indeed did me much spiritual good.

One of the benefits of being away was that I was in relative seclusion from the news cycle,  both the secular one and even more depressingly, the ecclesiastical one. I did manage to catch notice of a few news items, which I shall present below.

It was another bad month for what's left of Christendom as another 2 countries fell to sodomy. In Germany they passed a law recognising sodomitical unions and putting the final nail into any notion of marriage as a public good. That was sad, but not altogether surprising, given the state of the Church in Germany, as well as the general moral decline and political winds.

What was somewhat surprising to me was that Malta also fell to sodomy. This is, after all, a country which only allowed divorce some 4 years ago or something, and not with an exactly overwhelming majority, if memory serves me right. This is also a country which at the time has a more than 50% attendance at Mass. This is, however, a country which has such perverse bishops as Scicluna, of we-only-ever-need-to-listen-to-the-present-pope infamy, as well as the free-bread-for-adulterers-on-Sundays infamy. I take the chance to call it 'free bread' instead of Holy Communion because there is no reasonable chance that a bishop such as that believes in the Real Presence. I do, very much, though recognise that the sacrilege is very real because I do accept the notion that transubstantiation can occur in the Novus Ordo, given the official formula is used.

In Ireland, I was also infomed that their new sodomitical prime minister has taken charge. That was not a surprise as I had read that he was likely to be the new prime minister, but it is also striking that Ireland also only allowed divorce in the 1990s. Abortion looks very likely to follow.

In Poland, Donald Trump held a speech which was seen as much-ado-about-nothing by the Ron Paul Institute and as a ground-breaking speech by others. His optimisim for the survival of the West was not echoed by Mark Steyn though, and I do tend to agree with him that the will to survive has pretty much died out in the West. I would need more than flag-waving Poles fawning at a president who lauds them to conclude that there is enough fight to save Europe. Unfortunately, the tenacity of the Poles and some of the other mainly Catholic Eastern Europeans is more than compensated for by the suicidal tendencies of most of the other nations in the bloc.

The speech also gave me a good opportunity to note just how sad it is to see someone one thought was not a complete idiot turn out to be probably one, a person who only has a job on account of her looks, not altogether stellar either, I would hasten to add. This happened when a female commentator in response to Donald Trump's boast that he would like to see U.S. energy exports extended to such countries as Poland stated that it is nice of the president to do that, since it prevents Poland from getting it's "energy from communist countries such as Russia". This, mind you, is from a woman who seems to have been born probably not long before the fall of the Soviet Union. If one does not know that Russia is no longer a communist country, then absolutely nothing the person has to say on any issue is worth my attention, or yours either.

This was a woman on Fox News, which kind of validates the theory that the former president used to flip channels looking for new TV personalities with the sound off, just to see how good they looked on the box, without ever hearing what they had to say. It made me almost wish I had the same approach.

Vladimir Putin finally met Donald Trump, and this led to a ceasefire in parts of Syria. It's a step in the right direction, but nothing close to what the U.S. needs to do, which is at the very least to stay completely out of that war, which means in simple words to stop arming jihadists. I am not sure what else to make of the meeting as I have seen very few details of it.

Then there is the sad story of Charlie Gard, a poster boy for today's Western totalitarian state which sees no limit to its powers.

We also had Le Creep weighing in on why Africa is stuck in poverty. It is because people have 7-8 children, he says. Leaving aside that only one country in Africa has a birth rate higher than 7 - Niger - the perfect response would have been something like the following: "Well, unfortunately there is a shortage in Africa of barren women who are 25 years older than the men, so we are forced to engage in reproductive sex." That would have really put him in his place.

Now onto the Church.

I could begin no other place that with Cardinal Mũller having been relieved of his post. Evidently, there is a new policy at the Vatican of terminating posts after 5 years, and it is starting with him. According to Müller, he was called within a minute of ending his last day of his 5-year term, and was offered no explanation as to why his term was not being renewed. Well, Bergoglio is nothing if not consistent in how he handles personnel...

Pages

Subscribe to Donald Trump