Francis in Full(press for full article)

Bishop Robert Barron became quite frank about Pope Francis' papacy. He begins his critique with listing the great things Pope Francis accomplished, especially being a pastoral pope and a pope of the streets with the language of the streets.

But then he turns to what needs to be refined and reset:

And yet, what one reads in almost every assessment of the late pope is that he was, at the very least, “controversial,” “confusing,” “ambiguous.” Some commentators would go so far as to say that he was heretical, undermining the ancient traditions of the Church. I do not at all subscribe to that latter position, but I sympathize to a degree with the former characterizations. Pope Francis was a puzzling figure in many ways, seeming to delight in confounding expectations, zigging when you thought he would zag. He famously told the young people gathered for World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro to “hagan lío” (make a mess), and sometimes he appeared to take pleasure in doing just that. 

One of the messier moments of the Francis pontificate was the two-part Synod on the Family, which took place in 2014 and 2015. The fact that Walter Cardinal Kasper, a long-time advocate of allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion, spoke at the outset of the gathering indicated rather clearly the direction that Pope Francis wanted the synod to take. But he was met with stiff resistance from bishops, especially from the developing world, and when the final document appeared, the famous Amoris Laetitia, the question seemed oddly unresolved, open to a variety of interpretations. When the pope’s apologists pointed to an obscure footnote buried deep in the document as providing the requisite clarity, many in the Church were, to say the least, incredulous. And when four cardinals petitioned the pope to resolve a number of puzzles (dubia­, in the technical jargon) that Amoris Laetitia had raised in their minds, they were basically ignored. 

There are indeed many beautiful insights in Amoris Laetitia, but they were largely overlooked due to the controversy and ambiguity that accompanied the document. Indeed, in the wake of its publication, a sort of “doctrinal anarchy” was let loose, as various bishops’ conferences gave the document varying interpretations, so that, for example, what remained a mortal sin in Poland seemed permissible in Malta. If a primary responsibility of the pope is to maintain unity in doctrine and morals, it is hard to see how Pope Francis met that obligation throughout that synodal process and its aftermath. 

And he oddly did not seem to learn from this situation. In 2023, after the first round of the Synod on Synodality (more on this anon), Pope Francis’s doctrinal chief, Victor Manuel Cardinal Fernández, issued the statement Fiducia Supplicans, which allowed for the possibility of blessing those in same-sex unions. To say that a firestorm broke out in the Catholic world would be an understatement, and the opposition was led, once again, by Catholic leaders from the non-Western sphere. In an astonishing display of unity and courage, the bishops of Africa said that they would not enforce the teaching of Fiducia in their countries, and the pope backed down, permitting them to dissent from the document. That all of this unfolded immediately after a gathering of four hundred leaders from around the Catholic world, who were never consulted on the matter, simply beggars belief. Once again, the pope struggled to maintain the unity of the Church.

At times, too, the pope’s admirably generous instincts appeared to lead him into saying doctrinally imprecise things or countenancing problematic behaviors. An example of the first would be his endorsement, on a number of occasions, of the proposition that all religions are legitimate paths to God, like differing languages speaking the same truth. Now, given his clear enthusiasm for evangelization, I want to be generous in my interpretation of his words, construing them perhaps along the lines of the Second Vatican Council’s assertion that there are elements of truth in all religions. But I think it is fair to say that the pope at least gave the strong impression of religious indifferentism.  

As an example of his countenancing of problematic behaviors, I would point to the (in)famous Pachamama incident at the Synod on the Amazon in 2019. Though there remains a good deal of confusion about the purpose of the placement of the Pachamama statue in the Vatican Gardens during a prayer with the pope, it is certainly fair to say that it generated much controversy and that the various attempts to explain it only made matters worse. Once more, the pope found himself in the middle of a self-created and completely unnecessary kerfuffle, the man supposed to guarantee unity at least implicitly undermining it.

No one doubts that Pope Francis was rhetorically gifted, not in the academic manner of John Paul II or Benedict XVI to be sure, but in the manner of a parish priest adept at popular homilizing. And his speech very often had an edge. Here are a few of his gems: “Mr. and Mrs. Whiner”; “liquid Christian”; “pickled-pepper-faced Christian”; “weak to the point of rottenness”; “Church who is more spinster than mother.” And I believe it is fair to say that his rhetorical venom was, more often than not, directed at conservative Catholics. Here are a few more zingers: “the closed, legalistic slave of his own rigidity”; “doctors of the letter!”; “Rigidity conceals the leading of a double life, something pathological”; “professionals of the sacred! Reactionaries”; and, most famously, “­backwardists.” 

I know that these withering criticisms often deeply discouraged orthodox Catholics, especially young priests and seminarians, whom the pope once referred to as “little monsters.” On one occasion, during the first session of the Synod on Synodality, the pope spoke to the assembled delegates. This sort of direct papal intervention was extremely rare, for, to his credit, the pope did not want excessively to sway or dominate the discussion. He spoke, in a sarcastic tone, of young clerics in Rome who spend too much time at the clerical haberdashery shops, trying on hats, collars, and cassocks. Now, there may indeed be some immature priests and students who are preoccupied with such things, but it struck me as exceedingly strange that this was the topic the pope chose for this rare opportunity to address some of the top leadership of the Church. 

To me, it indicated a curious fixation on, and demonization of, the more conservatively minded. And what made matters even more mystifying is that Francis had to have known that the Church is flourishing precisely among its more conservative members. As the famously liberal church of Germany withers on the vine, the conservative, supernaturally-­oriented church of Nigeria is exploding in numbers. And in the West, the lively parts of the Church are, without doubt, those that embrace a vibrant orthodoxy rather than those that accommodate the secularist culture. Many of the pope’s expressions and stories were indeed funny, but one would be hard pressed to characterize them as invitations to dialogue with conservative interlocutors. 

By way of conclusion, I would like to say a few words about synodality, which I believe Francis himself would identify as his signature theme. I was privileged to be an elected delegate to both sessions of the Synod on Synodality. For two months, I listened to and spoke with representatives from all over the world, and I learned a lot about how Catholics respond to challenges in remarkably diverse cultural milieux. I very much enjoyed the conversations, both those formal exchanges around the table, and even more so, the informal chats during coffee breaks. I came to understand the pope’s Jesuit-inspired process of prayerful discernment. 

I also came, I must admit, to appreciate the limits of synodality. Though every dialogue was lively and informative, very few of them moved toward decision, judgment, or resolution. Most were stuck at what Bernard Lonergan would call the second stage of the epistemic process, namely, being intelligent or having bright ideas. They didn’t move to Lonergan’s third level, which is the act of making a judgment, much less to his fourth stage, which is that of responsible action. So respectful were we of the “process” of conversation that we had almost a phobia of coming to decision. 

This is a fatal problem for Christians entrusted with the evangelical command to announce Christ to the world. The upshot is something that I believe is repugnant to what Pope Francis has consistently said he wants the Church to be: extroverted, mission-oriented, not stuck in the sacristy. I wondered at times during the two rounds of the synod whether synodality represented a tension within the mind and heart of Francis himself. 

Of all of the popes in my lifetime, Francis is, by far, the one I knew the best. I was with him for three Octobers: the two already mentioned, and a third for the Synod on Young People in 2018. During those wonderful months, I saw him practically every day and had a few occasions to speak to him. I also encountered him on an ad limina visit and at a handful of other audiences. I always found him gracious, funny, and approachable; once we had a short but intense spiritual conversation. I considered him my spiritual father and sincerely mourn his passing. Requiescat in pace.

A Peace Deal or a Deception

Is Putin Again Being Deceived, or Are Putin and Trump Deceiving Their Own Populations?

Paul Craig Roberts

The details of the peace deal presented  by US special envoy Steve Witkoff are consistent with the report in the Financial Times discussed in my previous article and with Larry Sparano in the posted interview.  Putin will halt the Russian advance prior to driving Ukrainian soldiers out of all of the territory that has been reincorporated into Russia.  It appears to be the case that the borders between Russia and Ukraine will be the current front line, so Putin is withdrawing Russia’s claim to the Russian territories still under Ukrainian occupation.

In exchange Washington will give de jure, that is legal, by right, recognition to Crimea as a constituent part of Russia, and Washington will give de facto, that is accept the facts on the ground whether legal or not, recognition of the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Luhansk People’s Republic, Zaporozhye, and Kherson as provinces of Russia according to the present boundaries in the conflict.

By withholding de jure recognition of Russia’s battlefield gains, Ukraine can continue to claim, and demand return of, Russia’s battlefield gains. In other words, the agreement evades the central issue.

According to the agreement, Ukraine must renounce all NATO aspirations.  But Putin’s other demands, demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine are apparently not included in the agreement.

Washington will lift the sanctions against Russia, and there will be US-Russia economic cooperation, which seems to mean that Russia will open aspects of its economy to foreigners for exploitation, a disastrous Russian decision.

This is what the Russian oligarchs and Atlanticist Integrationists, who have never supported the war, want.  How the Russia’s military feels about victory being shoved aside by a negotiated settlement is unknown.

But is it a settlement?  Zelensky’s latest statement at this time of writing is that he will not concede a square inch of territory to Russia.  If Zelensky has to be coerced, and as he is not legally or constitutionally the current president of Ukraine as his term of office has expired, successive Ukrainian governments can legitimately claim that the agreement is not valid.

Moreover,  Ukraine and Europe have placed themselves behind an alternative agreement.  In their proposed agreement, Ukraine will consent to begin talks with Russia, Europe, and the US about the territorial issues. Moreover, Ukraine will be granted US security guarantees similar to Article 5 in the NATO treaty.  In other words, Ukraine becomes essentially a de facto member of NATO.  Additionally, there will be no restrictions on Ukraine’s armed forces or on the operations of foreign forces on Ukrainian territory, and Russia will compensate Ukraine for war damage.

Clearly, the two proposals have nothing in common.  Unless Europe gives in to Trump, a split is implied between the US and NATO, a split that could leave the US and Russia in an alliance that excludes Europe.  I have no explanation why Europe is taking this risk.

As we can see from the facts, only two of the four parties agree to the deal. Moreover, even if there is a deal, in the absence of de jure recognition of Russia’s territorial claims, the deal amounts to little more than kicking the can down the road.

In fact, John Helmer says that the deal is just a mechanism, a cover, for moving Russia aside so that Washington can get on with its war with China.

Here is how Helmer describes the situation:

“The politico-military strategy driving the US negotiators and prompting Trump’s tweets, is not a peace deal with Russia, nor even US withdrawal from the war in Europe. It is a strategy of sequencing one war at a time – the war in Europe to continue in the Ukraine with rearmed Germany, Poland and France in the lead, supported by Trump; and the US war against China in Asia.

“Sequencing these wars so as not to fight both enemies simultaneously – that’s the formula devised for Trump by Wess Mitchell, a former State Department appointee in the first Trump Administration,  and his business partner Elbridge Colby, now the third-ranking Pentagon official as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.   ‘The essence of diplomacy in strategy,’ Mitchell has just declaimed in Foreign Affairs, ‘is to rearrange power in space and time so that countries avoid tests of strength beyond their ability.’ . .

“Mitchell and Colby have convinced Trump and his negotiators that Russia has been badly damaged by the Ukrainian war which the Obama and Biden Administration have fought. Russian weakness, especially the perception that President Putin is both politically vulnerable and personally susceptible to US business inducements, is Trump’s strong card, and he should play it now.”

The goal is not peace, but to make money off of two wars: Europe and Ukraine’s war with Russia, and Washington’s war with China.  And perhaps a war with Iran for Israel thrown in.

Readers can listen to Helmer’s presentation of what he says is actually occurring in his discussion with Ray McGovern on Nima Alkhorshid’s program ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgG4ZmTZQww ), and they can read it in several of Helmer’s recent articles in Dancing with Bears ( https://johnhelmer.net/one-war-at-a-time-and-plenty-of-money-to-be-made-in-the-meantime-this-is-trumps-game-as-the-russian-and-chinese-general-staffs-understand/ ).

Helmer’s source for his explanation of what is really happening is an article in Foreign Affairs by West Mitchell, Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia in the first Trump term.  Mitchell is currently working with Trump’s current Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby to sequence America’s wars with Russia and China as the US lacks the power to take on both simultaneously. Mitchell’s article was published on April 22, 2025, in the May/June 2025 issue of Foreign Affairs.

Mitchell writes that the process of sequencing the wars with Russia and China should  begin “by bringing the war in Ukraine to an end in a way that is favorable to the United States. That means that when all is said and done, Kyiv must be strong enough to impede Russia’s westward advances” [for which no evidence exists, showing Mitchell’s mind to be controlled by the false narrative]. Washington should use the Korean War formula: “prioritize an armistice and push questions about a wider settlement into a separate process that could take years to bear fruit, it it ever does.”  This, of course, is what Washington’s de facto recognition of Russia’s territorial claims ensures.

Mitchell carelessly then reveals the intended deception of Babe-in-the-Woods Putin: “The United States should pursue a defense relationship with Ukraine akin to the one it maintains with Israel: not a formal alliance, but an agreement to sell, lend, or give Kyiv what it needs to defend itself. But it should not grant Ukraine [ de jure ] NATO membership. Instead, the United States should push European states to take responsibility for Ukraine—and for the security of their continent more generally.” This strategy capitalizes “on Putin’s special relationship with the Russian oligarchs” and dupes Kirill Dmitriev, Putin’s negotiator, ” into pressing the Kremlin to accept a short-term military armistice which stops well short of the demilitarization and denazification goals of the Special Military Operation.”

So, as Mitchell describes it, the “peace agreement” is a Washington deception to set up, yet again,  “Babe-in-the Woods Putin” for the eventual destruction of Russia.

Can I believe this?  Yes, I can.  Helmer has  been watching things for a long time and reporting on them.  This scenario is not a product of Helmer’s imagination.  It is spelled out in an article in Foreign Affairs, long the arbiter of American foreign policy. The author, West Mitchell, a former Trump high official, clearly holds to the neoconservative policy stated by Defense Undersecretary Paul Wolfwitz that the purpose of American foreign policy is hegemony over the world. If American hegemony requires war, war it is.

The Russians, with a large part of the mindless Russian establishment so desirous of being part of the West, have never paid any attention to the implication for Russian sovereignty of the neoconservative doctrine of US hegemony. This doctrine has not been denounced by President Trump. Consequently, Russia will be destroyed as the Russian government stupidly walks into deception after deception. Under Putin and Lavrov it will be one Minsk Agreement after another.

The question I have is:  Is Trump a part of the deception not only of Putin but also of the American people, or is this a deal he has accepted without realizing its consequences because he is desperate to end the conflict as he promised?  If Trump himself is part of the deception, then we have the explanation why the American Establishment did not prevent his reappearance in the Oval Office.

“The Return of Great-Power Diplomacy, How Strategic  Dealmaking Can Fortify American Power, by A. West Mitchell, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2025,  https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/return-great-power-diplomacy-strategy-wess-mitchell?utm_medium=promo_email&utm_source=lo_flows&utm_campaign=article_link&utm_term=article_email&utm_content=20250424 

In the post-Conciliar calendar this is the “Second Sunday of Easter”. In the 1962 Missale Romanum and in previous editions this Sunday is labelled: Dominica in Albis in Octava Paschae… Sunday in white garments on the Octave of Easter. In traditional parlance today is called “Low Sunday” or sometimes “Thomas Sunday” because of the Gospel reading about the doubting Apostle. It is called “Quasimodo…

Source

The EU must now deal with Russia without the old American myths

Recent statements from senior American officials have raised eyebrows. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Washington is beginning to better understand Russia’s position as Ukraine negotiations proceed. Simultaneously, Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth declared the era of the US serving as Europe’s sole security guarantor is over.

Is this a diplomatic victory for Russia? Not yet. There is still a long road ahead. But these signals from Washington should not be dismissed as mere tactical maneuvers. Rather, they suggest the growing possibility of a strategic compromise – the very goal Russia sought with its European security initiatives in December 2021. Tragically, many lives have been lost to bring the international system to this point, a grim reminder that significant change in global affairs rarely comes peacefully.

For 80 years, the European security order has been biased against Russia. Even when the USSR or Russia formally participated, it was merely a mechanism for limiting Russian influence. The entire postwar ‘legitimacy’ of the international order, as the late Henry Kissinger observed, rested on containing Russia. After 1945, Western countries prioritized Russia’s containment above even their own autonomy. To abandon this principle would acknowledge the collapse of the old order and the necessity of constructing a new one.

Today’s political upheavals in the US make this shift conceivable, although certainty remains distant. Washington’s erratic policy toward Ukraine is merely a symptom of deeper changes in Europe’s political architecture. It would be naive to believe that earlier American hostility toward Russian interests stemmed from ignorance. Americans have often been stereotyped as crude ‘nouveaux riches’, but the truth is that states act based on calculations of power and interest, not emotions or misunderstandings.

For all its peculiarities, America remains a sovereign power. And now, its relative decline forces a reassessment of priorities. Washington no longer has the luxury of fulfilling endless foreign obligations. Its voters – who ultimately foot the bill – demand that their leaders focus on domestic concerns. In such circumstances, the need to freeze the conflict with Russia becomes paramount.

Faced with a rising China and diminishing global influence, Washington sees little value in clinging to outdated commitments. Support for European satellites or the Kiev regime has become an unaffordable luxury. In reality, American ‘guarantees’ to Europe were always more myth than substance. Their primary purpose was psychological – to convince Russia that the West is invincible, thereby deterring challenges without having to justify the US military presence in Europe.

Even during the Cold War, after the mid-1950s, the USSR had no intention of attacking Western Europe. After 1991, all Russia sought from Europe was commerce and leisure. There was never any real need for an external ‘protector’ on the continent.

Moreover, American politicians prioritize their own people. No US government would sacrifice the lives of its citizens to fulfill formal pledges to foreign nations. Even during the past three years, the greatest danger of escalation between the US and Russia stemmed not from a hypothetical defense of Europe, but from direct security risks involving American interests.

Western Europeans, of course, have long understood that US security guarantees are a convenient fiction. Even the most Russophobic regimes in the Baltics know this. But for decades, the EU states relied on this myth to justify hostile policies toward Russia while avoiding the burden of real defense expenditures. It became the ideological glue holding the European project together. Without it, they are at a loss: They have no alternative vision for a common order that isn’t based on enmity toward Russia.

The likely retreat of American leadership from Europe does not mean Russia should rush forward aggressively. On the contrary, it should proceed with cold-blooded calculation. War has never been the preferred tool of Russian foreign policy. Throughout history, Russia has favored diplomacy, even when progress was slow and interrupted by conflict. Patience has been its great strength.

Thus, Russia’s response to American disengagement will be measured and cautious. We are even prepared to assist our American colleagues in ‘explaining’ their evolving position to their allies. After all, a sudden epiphany regarding Russian interests requires careful handling.

In the emerging world, change will not be defined by grand declarations, but by the steady reassertion of sovereignty and the quiet death of the illusions that once governed international relations.

This article was first published by Vzglyad newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.

European officials believe that Ukraine “may be willing to endure” acknowledgment of Moscow’s control over Crimea, the report says

European officials are pressing Ukraine to accept the likelihood that it will be forced to agree to certain territorial concessions to Russia as part of a peace agreement, the Washington Post reported on Friday, citing sources.

The issue was reportedly discussed during talks in London involving European and Ukrainian officials, which were, however, downgraded after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced he would not attend. Despite this, one official told the WaPo that the talks “made progress” in terms of convincing Kiev that concessions may be unavoidable.

Western negotiators are said to have a sense that Ukraine “may be willing to endure effective Russian control of Crimea,” provided Kiev is not required to legally recognize this reality. The peninsula overwhelmingly voted to join Russia in 2014 following a Western-backed coup in Kiev.

Many Ukrainians, however, are reluctant to renounce future claims to Crimea, viewing any territorial compromise as setting a “dangerous precedent” for potential formal recognition of Moscow's control over four other former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in 2022.

This comes as the US has clashed with European nations and Kiev over their vision for a Ukraine peace arrangement, with the sides presenting different proposals on the terms for ending the conflict, according to a Reuters report, which was confirmed by the WaPo.

In particular, US envoy Steve Witkoff reportedly proposed that Washington recognize Crimea as Russian and accept Moscow’s de facto control over large parts of the other four regions. Meanwhile, Ukraine and its European supporters, however, reportedly continue to resist any mention of territorial recognition in the proposed agreements. Their version of a peace framework postpones territorial issues until after a ceasefire and emphasizes the necessity of strong security guarantees for Kiev.

For Europe and Ukraine, “it is not only reasonable but necessary to push back on some elements of the US proposal, as it gives Ukraine practically very, very little. And Russia a lot,” a Western official told the WaPo. The report also noted that Europe is trying to “edge Washington toward a more reasonable agreement,” including the recognition that a ceasefire must be an essential first step.

The WaPo report comes as Russian President Vladimir Putin held lengthy talks on Friday with Witkoff at the Kremlin on Friday. Presidential adviser Yury Ushakov described the meeting as “constructive and very useful” in nature,” adding that the talks included the idea of possibly resuming direct negotiations between Moscow and Kiev.

Trump, commenting on the state of the negotiations, said Ukraine and Russia “should now meet, at very high levels, to ‘finish it off.’ Most of the major points are agreed to.”

Inside This Week's Bull Bear Report

• How Being Like Spock Can Help You Win The Investing Game
• How We Are Trading It
• Research Report - Speculator Vs Investor
• YouTube - Before The Bell
• Market Statistics
• Stock Screens
• Portfolio Trades This Week

Market Finds Some Hope

Last week, we discussed the issue with the spat between President Trump and the Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell. As noted then:

"While the markets await the next Federal Reserve meeting, the uncertainty over monetary policy weighs on markets as much as the uncertainty about tariffs. This past week, the market reversed some of its gains from the massive "tariff reprieve" surge. With the MACD back on a buy signal and money flows turning positive, buyers are tepidly stepping back into the market. The 20-DMA continues to act as overhead resistance, defining the current downtrend. While there is undoubtedly a risk of another test of recent lows, which should be expected and why caution remains advisable, a break above the 20-DMA would lead to a rally to the 50-DMA. (Monday's article addressed the "Death Cross" and what it means for investors.)"

The market rallied above the 20-DMA this past week as investors found some "silver linings" to the ongoing tariff dispute. Despite China saying "no negotiations" had started with the U.S., comments from both President Trump and Scott Bessent suggested that the Administration would "be nice" to China and that a "very good deal" could be done between the two countries. As we have noted previously, given the more extreme oversold condition of the market, any "good news" would allow investors to push stocks higher.

As stated, the market cleared initial resistance at the 20-DMA, but there is a heavy band of resistance just ahead at the level where the market was trying to bottom ahead of the tariff announcements. Just above that is the confluence of the 50- and 200-DMAs. While markets are not overbought yet, sellers will likely re-emerge if the market pushes further into those resistance levels. As we have suggested over the last two weeks, we are likely in for a rather protracted consolidation action as the market digests ongoing trade negotiations, slower economic growth, and reduced earnings expectations. Therefore, we should expect continued pullbacks and rallies until the market resolves the seller imbalances.

What is very interesting about the recent market decline is that while professional and "older investors," who are presumably more experienced, are very "bearish" about their investment outlook, retail investors have been "buying the dip" at the most on record going back to early 2023.

However, while you may shake your head in disbelief, buying markets when they are down has been an essentially winning strategy for dip buyers over the last decade. Of course, such should be unsurprising given repeated rounds of monetary and fiscal interventions. As previously discussed, the Fed has engendered an entire generation of young investors with a sense of "moral hazard." To wit:

"From a market perspective, the liquidity flows from the Federal Reserve increased speculative appetites and investors piled into “zombies” with reckless abandon. Why?  Because of a lack of incentive to guard against risk as investors believe the Fed is protecting them from the consequences of risk. In other words, the Fed has “insured them” against potential losses."

Will this time be different? Maybe. There will be a point where taking on excessive speculative risk in leveraged ETFs and options leads to poor outcomes. However, that may not be today. As such, we need to be mindful that buyers and sellers drive markets. Until the markets change investors' speculative attitudes, we will likely continue to find support in markets even though we may think there shouldn't be.

Such is the message of today's discussion: learning to be "unemotional" when managing our money.

Need Help With Your Investing Strategy?

Are you looking for complete financial, insurance, and estate planning? Need a risk-managed portfolio management strategy to grow and protect your savings? Whatever your needs are, we are here to help.

Spock And The Vulcan Approach To Investing

In "Is Risk Off Positioning Signaling A Market Low," we discussed the extremely oversold market conditions that are beginning to suggest the market may be approaching a near-term low. That analysis was based on various indicators, including extremely negative investor sentiment, positioning, and technical oversold conditions. As we stated, the current market environment is much like 2022. The first chart below shows the 2022 market correction versus 2025. The rally that began this past week could certainly rally further. Still, as we have warned, any rally in the near term will likely be met with sellers until there is a resolution on tariffs, monetary policy, and more certainty around recession risks.

The following chart compares our weekly Technical Composite Index. You will note that the market bounced or bottomed when the technical composite reached below 20.

The current conundrum is whether the extremely low technical readings preceding this week's rally were a technical bounce or a market bottom. Unfortunately, we won't know until after the fact. Still, our gut instinct suggests that given the depth of the decline and the technical damage to the market overall, any significant bounce will be met with sellers. Historically, the first market low during a correction phase is not usually a bottom. Regardless, the market continues to follow the 2022 playbook closely this year, but I would not expect the rest of the year to be an exact match.

The optimistic view is that while there are never any guarantees when it comes to investing, history suggests that after such a volatile period, we tend to perform better in the future, barring the onset of a recession or credit-related event. The bad news is that these increases in volatility tend to lead investors to make many emotionally driven investment mistakes. We rationalize, try to avoid losses, fail to take action when needed, or take action when we shouldn't—all driven by our emotions. Yet being unemotional about your money is crucial to long-term investment outcomes.

As Howard Marks once stated:

“If I ask you what’s the risk in investing, you would answer the risk of losing money. But there actually are two risks in investing: One is to lose money, and the other is to miss an opportunity.

You can eliminate either one, but you can’t eliminate both at the same time. 

So the question is how you’re going to position yourself versus these two risks: straight down the middle, more aggressive or more defensive.

I think of it like a comedy movie where a guy is considering some activity. On his right shoulder is sitting an angel in a white robe. He says: ‘No, don’t do it! It’s not prudent, it’s not a good idea, it’s not proper and you’ll get in trouble’.

On the other shoulder is the devil in a red robe with his pitchfork. He whispers: ‘Do it, you’ll get rich’. In the end, the devil usually wins.

Caution, maturity and doing the right thing are old-fashioned ideas. And when they do battle against the desire to get rich, other than in panic times the desire to get rich usually wins. That’s why bubbles are created and frauds like Bernie Madoff get money.

How do you avoid getting trapped by the devil?

I’ve been in this business for over forty-five years now, so I’ve had a lot of experience.  In addition, I am not a very emotional person. In fact, almost all the great investors I know are unemotional. If you’re emotional then you’ll buy at the top when everybody is euphoric and prices are high. Also, you’ll sell at the bottom when everybody is depressed and prices are low. You’ll be like everybody else and you will always do the wrong thing at the extremes.

Therefore, unemotionalism is one of the most important criteria for being a successful investor. And if you can’t be unemotional you should not invest your own money, period. Most great investors practice something called contrarianism. It consists of doing the right thing at the extremes which is the contrary of what everybody else is doing. So unemtionalism is one of the basic requirements for contrarianism.”

If you didn't read that quote carefully, I would reread it.

During periods of market volatility, investors often let emotions drive decisions. However, the investors who perform best under pressure tend to think less like adrenaline-fueled traders and more like Spock from Star Trek. Emotionless, logical, and consistent, Spock's mindset offers guidance for navigating turbulent markets. As he once said, “Insufficient facts always invite danger.” That mindset is exactly what investors need when fear or greed threaten sound decision-making. Here are some points to consider.

Emotion Is The Enemy of Reason

Market volatility heightens stress, which in turn amplifies emotional responses. As a result, investors often chase rallies or panic-sell during drawdowns. Spock’s detachment offers a counterpoint.

“When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Investing means cutting through noise, avoiding speculation, and relying on data. For example, the media is jammed with emotionally charged headlines about tariff-induced trade wars, recessions, and de-dollarization. In reality, those events rarely occur. As we discussed in "Probabilities vs Possibilities:"

"The chart below is a normally distributed “bell curve” of potential events and outcomes. In simple terms, 68.26% of the time, typical outcomes occur. Economically speaking, such would be a normal recession or the avoidance of a recession. 95.44% of the time, we are most likely dealing with a range of outcomes between a reasonably deep recession and standard economic growth rates. However, there is a 2.14% chance that we could see another economic crisis like the 2008 Financial Crisis. But what about “economic armageddon?” That event where nothing matters but “gold, beanie weenies, and bunker.” That is a 0.14% possibility."

This concept of possibilities versus possibilities is crucial to navigating investment outcomes. Spock never claimed to predict the future. Instead, he calculated the probabilities of potential outcomes. That approach mirrors sound portfolio management. Rather than trying to guess what markets will do tomorrow, successful investors assess various outcomes and plan accordingly. As Spock once stated

“Change is the essential process of all existence.”

In other words, if your current reaction to recent market volatility is to expect it to continue indefinitely, you will likely be disappointed. This is why we continually suggest managing risk, rebalancing, taking profits, and focusing on allocations. Building portfolios that account for downside risks, multiple economic scenarios, and margin of safety allows investors to remain calm when markets shift. The only thing investors need to fear is fear itself.

Emotional decisions typically underperform disciplined ones. Investors can’t eliminate volatility, but can control their reactions to it. Behavioral finance confirms this. Loss aversion, herd behavior, and recency bias drive many of the worst investment decisions.

Discipline Outperforms Reactivity

Reacting emotionally to short-term moves often destroys long-term returns. Spock’s strength was never his speed, but his steadiness.

“Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.”

The ability to step back, re-evaluate with clarity, and follow a predetermined investment process keeps portfolios aligned with goals. Legendary investor Charlie Munger confirmed this view when he stated:

“The big money is not in the buying and selling, but in the waiting.”

Patience is a strategic advantage. During volatile markets, as we have currently, it is crucial to step back and focus on the broad performance of the portfolio relative to your goals. A disciplined approach before volatility sets in is the key to navigating outcomes. Spock’s analytical mindset lends itself to rigorous risk assessment. He didn’t avoid danger; he quantified and prepared for it. Likewise, investors must separate perceived risk from actual risk. Volatility may feel like danger, but it is often simply price movement around a trend. Actual risk lies in permanent capital loss, overconcentration, or misalignment with one’s time horizon and objectives.

As we discussed previously, volatility begets volatility. Periods of low volatility always lead to high volatility, like now. However, the opposite is also true. The trick is navigating the periods of high volatility well enough to participate in the extended periods of low volatility.

Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, advocates for a similar analytical approach to risk:

“If you’re not worried, you need to worry. And if you’re worried, you don’t need to worry.”

In other words, constant vigilance and preparation are more productive than panic. Investing during periods of uncertainty can be dangerous; however, there are some steps to take when investing in uncertain markets.

• Have excess emergency savings, so you are not “forced” to sell during a market decline to meet obligations.
• Extend your time horizon to 5-7 years, as short-term stresses can take time to resolve.
• Don’t obsessively check your portfolio.
• Consider tax-loss harvesting (selling stocks at a loss) to offset those losses against future gains.
• Stick to your investing discipline regardless of what happens.

Spock would agree.

Emotions Cloud Opportunity Recognition

Lastly, one overlooked cost of emotional investing is the inability to recognize opportunity during downturns. As Spock once said:

“Fear is the enemy. It is the great destroyer of logic.”

One mistake that investors make when volatility strikes is to assume that since the market is going down, EVERYTHING is going down simultaneously. That is rarely the case.

"The first law of thermodynamics states that, when energy passes into or out of a system (as work, heat, or matter), the system's internal energy changes in accordance with the law of conservation of energy. This also results in the observation that, in an externally isolated system, even with internal changes, the sum of all forms of energy must remain constant, as energy cannot be created or destroyed."

In the financial markets, money is not created or destroyed; it merely changes form. As the old Wall Street adage states, "There is always a bull market somewhere." In other words, as capital is extracted from one asset, that capital is reinvested into another asset. Eventually, that same flow of capital will reverse, and the asset that rose previously will become a source of liquidity to return to what was sold off. A good recent example of this is Gold versus the S&P 500 index. As shown, there is a very high negative correlation between the 36-month rate of change of the two assets. Simply put, when one rises, it becomes a source of liquidity for the falling asset.

This doesn't mean that one asset is good or the other is bad, it just means that money is changing form.

Crucially, when volatility strikes, prices disconnect from fundamentals. Investors with emotional discipline can identify undervalued assets while others flee. Such is why the best buying opportunities occur during maximum pessimism, but few are brave or logical enough to act. As Warren Buffett put it plainly:

“Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful.”

That kind of contrarian thinking requires emotional restraint. Spock would likely view investor sentiment as a signal to be observed and discounted, not followed.

Conclusion: Adopt A Vulcan Framework

As an investor, you can take a page from Spock’s playbook and approach volatility not as a crisis but as a condition. Here are some basic steps:

1. Rely on process, not prediction;
2. Focus on probabilities, not possibilities.
3. Discount possibilities that fall well outside historical norms.
4. Question assumptions, most importantly your own.
5. Suppress reactive behavior,
6. Manage risk with calm precision.

In short, do what great investors have always done: stick to a disciplined, rational approach while others lose their heads.

I realize that you are not a Vulcan and are not afforded the luxury of being raised to be devoid of emotions. Fortunately, you don’t need to be Vulcan to benefit from the mindset. But you do need to recognize that emotions, while natural, often do more harm than good in investing. So while the market has declined this year, and headlines are screaming panic, remember Spock’s most crucial wisdom:

“Live long and prosper.”

That’s the goal, after all.

How We Are Trading It

We continue to manage our portfolios with an above-normal level of caution. On Friday, we added to our short-market hedge and slightly increased the duration of our bond portfolio as the "basis trade" crisis we discussed two weeks ago seems to be under control. However, that risk is not entirely over.

As noted above, there is a tremendous amount of risk ahead, and as we approach those levels, there will be a large supply of stock for sale. While we don't expect the market to crater to new lows, unless there is another tariff or trade shock, and a surge in recessionary data, a retest of recent lows would be unsurprising. As such, we are carrying an overweight position in cash and reduced equity allocations for now. We will likely reduce equity allocations a bit further next week.

Our primary goal is to "survive" the correction phase so that we are in a strong position to benefit from stronger equity markets. While we run various portfolio models, the most popular model is the 60/40 allocation, which is slightly positive for the year, while the S&P 500 is down 6%. Yes, the portfolio is down from its peak, which should be expected given the drag from equities, but managing risk, taking profits, and rebalancing allocations has kept volatility largely suppressed. (You can view the model and its holdings at SimpleVisor.com)

It is worth noting that the market is back to overbought on a very short-term basis. While markets can stay overbought for some time, we are likely getting closer to the point where "trapped longs" will look for an opportunity to exit. If you have not already done so, next week will likely be a good opportunity to begin rebalancing risk, increasing cash levels, and adding hedges.

(Note: The allocation below contains a 3.5% short S&P 500 position in the ETF allocation.)

Feel free to reach out if you want to navigate these uncertain waters with expert guidance. Our team specializes in helping clients make informed decisions in today’s volatile markets.

Research Report

Subscribe To “Before The Bell” For Daily Trading Updates

We have set up a separate channel JUST for our short daily market updates. Please subscribe to THIS CHANNEL to receive daily notifications before the market opens.

Click Here And Then Click The SUBSCRIBE Button

Subscribe To Our YouTube Channel To Get Notified Of All Our Videos

Bull Bear Report Market Statistics & Screens

SimpleVisor Top & Bottom Performers By Sector

S&P 500 Weekly Tear Sheet

Relative Performance Analysis

As we stated last week, "While risk is subsiding in the near term, there is a lack of a catalyst to move stocks higher. Some good news on the tariff front or better-than-expected earnings over the next two weeks could provide relief. However, by the end of the month, stock buybacks return, which will give some support to equities headed into May."

That good news came this past week, along with "not-as-bad-as-expected" earnings announcements, which supported last week's rally. That support could continue into the end of the month, with the stock buyback window opening after next week's earnings from MSFT, AAPL, and AMZN. However, as noted in the discussion above, many investors are trapped in the recent selloff looking for an exit, and with markets short-term overbought (lower left panel), a return of selling pressure will be unsurprising. Trade accordingly.

Technical Composite

The technical overbought/sold gauge comprises several price indicators (R.S.I., Williams %R, etc.), measured using “weekly” closing price data. Readings above “80” are considered overbought, and below “20” are oversold. The market peaks when those readings are 80 or above, suggesting prudent profit-taking and risk management. The best buying opportunities exist when those readings are 20 or below.

The current reading is 38.76 out of a possible 100.

Portfolio Positioning “Fear / Greed” Gauge

The “Fear/Greed” gauge is how individual and professional investors are “positioning” themselves in the market based on their equity exposure. From a contrarian position, the higher the allocation to equities, the more likely the market is closer to a correction than not. The gauge uses weekly closing data.

NOTE: The Fear/Greed Index measures risk from 0 to 100. It is a rarity that it reaches levels above 90.

The current reading is 42.79 out of a possible 100.

Relative Sector Analysis

Most Oversold Sector Analysis

Sector Model Analysis & Risk Ranges

How To Read This Table

• The table compares the relative performance of each sector and market to the S&P 500 index.
• “MA XVER” (Moving Average Crossover) is determined by the short-term weekly moving average crossing positively or negatively with the long-term weekly moving average.
• The risk range is a function of the month-end closing price and the “beta” of the sector or market. (Ranges reset on the 1st of each month)
• The table shows the price deviation above and below the weekly moving averages.

As noted last week, the rally this past week was unsurprising given the large number of markets and sectors trading well below the monthly risk ranges. However, given that most markets and sectors are trading with "bearish" crossovers, the correction process has likely not ended. Historically, when most markets and sectors are trading in bearish trends, the correction process is more entrenched and lasts longer than normal market pullbacks. As such, continue to manage risk exposures, take profits in overbought and deviated sectors, and look for opportunities forming in deeply beaten-up areas. Gold started a correction this past week, but remains exceedingly overbought and deviated from long-term averages.

Weekly SimpleVisor Stock Screens

We provide three stock screens each week from SimpleVisor.

This week, we are searching for the Top 20:

• Relative Strength Stocks
• Momentum Stocks
• Technical Strength W/ Dividends

(Click Images To Enlarge)

RSI Screen

Momentum Screen

Technically Strong With Dividends

SimpleVisor Portfolio Changes

We post all of our portfolio changes as they occur at SimpleVisor:

Apr 25th

"As discussed previously, we continue using counter-trend rallies in the market to reduce risk, hedge, and rebalance exposures. In both models, we are using the bond sell-off, now that the “basis trade” seems to be calming down, to shift 2% of the portfolio in 3-7 Treasury Holdings (IEI) back into Extended Duration Bond (EDV). Also, we add 1% of the portfolio to our current short S&P 500 (SH) holding in both models.

IMPORTANT NOTE: We manage an IRA account for our models, so we don’t have to worry about tax issues. If trading in a taxable account, use TLT rather than EDV to avoid negating the tax loss benefit."

Equity Model

• Sell 2% of IEF and add 2% of the portfolio into EDV
• Add 1% of the portfolio to SH

ETF Model

• Sell 2% of IEF and add 2% of the portfolio into EDV
• Add 1% of the portfolio to SH

Lance Roberts, C.I.O., RIA Advisors

The post Spock And The Logic Based Approach To Volatility appeared first on RIA.

A formal agreement should have been sealed three weeks ago, the US president has said

Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky is “three weeks late” in signing a minerals deal with the US, President Donald Trump has said. In a post on Truth Social on Friday, he demanded the agreement be signed “immediately.”

Washington and Kiev have been negotiating a deal for weeks that would grant the US access to Ukraine’s natural resources, including rare-earth minerals that are vital for high-tech industries.

Ukraine hopes the deal will secure the US as a lasting security partner, a commitment that the Trump administration has so far declined to make. Washington insists the deal should compensate America for past aid in the conflict with Russia. Kiev, however, claims the assistance was provided unconditionally.

A preliminary Memorandum of Intent was signed last week, according to Ukraine’s first deputy prime minister, Yulia Sviridenko. Trump, however, has complained that the process is dragging on too long.

“Ukraine, headed by Vladimir Zelensky, has not signed the final papers on the very important Rare Earths Deal with the United States. It is at least three weeks late. Hopefully, it will be signed IMMEDIATELY,” he wrote.

The deal was expected to be signed in February during a visit by Zelensky visit to the White House. The event, however, devolved into a heated spat between the leaders, with Trump accusing Zelensky of disrespecting America and showing ingratitude for US aid, while being reluctant to seek peace with Russia and “gambling with World War III.” Trump later said Zelensky was “trying to back out” of the deal, warning that he faces “big, big problems” if he does.

Last week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said White House officials were “still working on the details” of when and where the signing would take place, but expected that negotiations would be completed by April 26. The Memorandum of Intent also outlines this timeline.

In his post on Friday, Trump also commented on Ukraine peace efforts, saying “work on the overall Peace Deal between Russia and Ukraine is going smoothly” and that “success seems to be in the future.” In another post, he indicated plans to meet with Russian and Ukrainian representatives on Saturday in Rome, where he is attending Pope Francis’ funeral, which Zelensky also plans to attend.

“They are very close to a deal, and the two sides should now meet, at very high levels, to finish it off. Most of the major points are agreed to,” Trump wrote.

READ MORE: Zelensky contradicts Trump on deal with Russia

While the details have not been officially disclosed, the agreement proposed by Washington reportedly includes US recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, a “freezing” of the conflict along the current front lines, acknowledgment of Moscow’s control over large parts of the four former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia, and formal opposition to Ukraine’s NATO bid.

I am looking at a couple of random lines lifted from a bleak little poem by Gerard Manley Hopkins, S.J., written at a sad time near the end of a short and, by his own reckoning, unfulfilled life. He was quite mistaken about that, by the way. His last words, whispered aloud about how happy he was to be going home to God, certainly put that misconception to rest. Nevertheless, the lines he wrote…

Source

The Kremlin suspects that the assassination of Yaroslav Moskalik was orchestrated by Ukraine

US President Donald Trump has promised to look into the assassination of a senior Russian general outside Moscow on Friday, telling reporters “That’s a big one.” The incident took place as Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, arrived in Moscow for high-level talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Yaroslav Moskalik, the deputy chief of operations of Russia’s General Staff, was killed in a car bomb explosion outside his residence in Balashikha, a suburb east of Moscow.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova suggested there is “reason to believe that Ukrainian intelligence services were involved in the assassination,” noting that Moskalik was involved in talks to resolve the Ukraine crisis before the conflict escalated in 2022.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also blamed Ukraine, saying: “The Kiev regime once again shows its essence,” while accusing the country of continuing to “engage in terrorist activities” inside Russia.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday, Trump, who apparently had not known about the incident until he was asked, said, “That’s hitting close to home, right? That’s a big one.” He added: “I’ll look at it. If I hear anything, I’ll let you know.”

The assassination occurred as Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, arrived in Moscow for high-level talks with Putin. Russian presidential adviser Yury Ushakov described the three-hour meeting as “constructive and very useful in nature”, saying discussions focused on restarting direct negotiations between Moscow and Kiev which have been frozen since the spring of 2022.

Commenting on the talks, Trump said Russia and Ukraine “are very close to a deal, and the two sides should now meet, at very high levels, to ‘finish it off.’ Most of the major points are agreed to.”

The agreement proposed by Washington reportedly includes US recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, as well as “freezing” the conflict along the current front lines and acknowledging Moscow’s control over large parts of the four former Ukrainian regions which voted to join Russia. The deal would also reportedly prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and initiate a phased removal of the sanctions on Russia.

Zelensky, however, has ruled out any territorial concessions to Moscow, stressing that Kiev will not even discuss recognizing Crimea as Russian territory.

A Solemn Vow
April 25 2025

___________________________________
More Vids!
+BN Vids Archive! HERE!
___________________________________
Support The Brother Nathanael Foundation!
Br Nathanael Fnd Is Tax Exempt/EIN 27-2983459

Or Send Your Contribution To:
The Brother Nathanael Foundation, POB 547, Priest River, ID 83856
E-mail: brothernathanaelfoundation([at])yahoo[dot]com
Scroll Down For Comments

Officials urged visitors to be respectful as the late pontiff lay in state at St. Peter’s Basilica

Vatican officials urged mourners to refrain from taking photographs with the late Pope Francis as he lay in state at St. Peter’s Basilica, stressing the need for solemnity and respect during the period of mourning.

The appeal came after images and videos surfaced online showing visitors posing near the casket. Vatican staff instructed the faithful to refrain from using mobile phones and to maintain an atmosphere of prayer and reflection.

“Visitors are invited not to take photos,” a Vatican spokesperson told The Times, underscoring the importance of preserving the dignity of the occasion.

READ MORE: Vatican reveals cause of Pope Francis’s death

Since the public viewing began on Wednesday, around 250,000 mourners filed past the late pope’s casket, according to Vatican News. To accommodate the vast crowds, St. Peter’s Basilica remained open overnight.

On Friday evening, the Pope’s coffin was sealed during a private ceremony led by Cardinal-Camerlengo Kevin Farrell. Following a centuries-old tradition, a white silk cloth was placed over Pope Francis’ face, and a bag containing coins and medals minted during his pontificate was placed inside the coffin. His casket was sealed, bearing a cross, his coat of arms, and official Vatican seals, in preparation for the funeral scheduled for Saturday morning.

The funeral will be attended by thousands of people, including world leaders and dignitaries, paying tribute to the 266th Pope, whose memory, the Vatican said, “remains in the heart of the Church and of all humanity.”

Kiev expects sustained American aid despite growing tensions over Trump’s peace plan

Kiev expects Washington to provide long-term security assistance modeled on the US relationship with Israel, Vladimir Zelensky has said, after Ukraine’s European backers reportedly rejected several points of US President Donald Trump’s proposed peace plan.

Washington presented its draft deal to end the hostilities between Kiev and Moscow during talks in Paris last week. At a follow-up meeting in London on Wednesday – which was downgraded at the last minute after Zelensky publicly rejected key US suggestions – Ukrainian officials and their NATO European counterparts reportedly put forward a counterproposal.

Speaking to journalists on Friday, Zelensky insisted that any future peace deal with Moscow must be backed by sustained US military, financial, and political support.

“Discussions in London have focused on security guarantees from the United States. We hope them to be at least as robust as those provided to Israel. Additionally, we anticipate support from our European partners and are actively developing the infrastructure necessary for these guarantees,” Zelensky said.

Deliberations about an Israeli model of support for Ukraine first emerged during the presidency of Joe Biden, when Western officials began to acknowledge that Kiev was unlikely to be granted NATO membership. In lieu of collective security guarantees, they sought ways to at least ensure a long-term, uninterrupted flow of Western arms.

Zelensky’s comments come amid increasing friction with Washington, as Trump pushes Kiev to accept what media outlets have described as his “final offer” to end the conflict. Reports indicate that Washington’s framework includes freezing the conflict along the current front lines and recognizing Crimea as Russian territory – a condition Zelensky has firmly rejected.

Trump stated that “Crimea will stay with Russia” in an interview with Time Magazine on Friday. He argued that Kiev would never have enough weapons or manpower to retake the peninsula, which “was handed over to Russia without a shot being fired.” Crimea officially joined Russia in 2014 after a referendum held following a Western-backed coup in Kiev.

“Our position is unchanged,” Zelensky reiterated on Friday, despite acknowledging Kiev’s dependence on continued American support.

Trump and other senior US officials have warned that if progress is not made soon, Washington may reconsider its role as mediator and shift its focus to other global priorities. According to reports, Ukrainian officials are already bracing for the possibility of reduced American support should negotiations collapse.

Moscow has stated that it is open to negotiations and is grateful for Trump’s peace initiatives. However, the Russian leadership has stressed that it seeks a lasting solution to the conflict, saying a temporary halt in the hostilities would simply allow Ukraine’s Western backers to rearm its military. Any peace deal must acknowledge the territorial reality and address the root causes of the conflict, including Ukraine’s NATO aspirations, Russia has insisted.

Planned Parenthood and its affiliates have a few less clinics than they did five years ago, but a look at the organization’s recent efforts and activities show it has taken steps to ensure its abortion business stays busy even after Dobbs.  Dobbs is, of course, the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe in June of 2022 and made it possible for states to prohibit abortion and protect innocent unborn children from destruction.

Here’s an overview of what we found.

*In 2020, Planned Parenthood listed 641 clinics on its website, 388 of which performed abortion. While the overall count has dropped to 585, the number of abortion-offering clinics has risen to 398.

*Continuing a trend that goes back several years, many smaller affiliates with only a few clinics continue to be absorbed into larger, richer, more politically powerful affiliates, so that a lot of these larger affiliates now have operations covering multiple states.

Get the latest pro-life news and information on X (Twitter). Follow @LifeNewsHQ//

*By our count, there were 57 affiliates in 2020, but just 48 in 2025. (For the record, there were over a hundred as recently as 2010.)  Some were just several affiliates in a given state combining to form a larger state affiliate (e.g., becoming Planned Parenthood of Greater New York) but others joined affiliates on the other side of the country (e.g., Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky joined a large affiliate in the Northwest to become Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky).

Here’s the breakdown on the clinics.

The number of clinics would have been even smaller, but this time around, 45 of those 594 clinics are “virtual.” Virtual clinics are not brick-and-mortar buildings at a fixed address. They are some sort of interactive website where patients can log on or call up and chat with a clinician about their health issues, get prescriptions for contraceptives or even treatment for STDs (sexually transmitted diseases).

Many of these virtual clinics also offer abortion pills which can be prescribed and delivered by mail without a woman ever having to come in for an appointment or exam.

While just 159 of Planned Parenthood’s clinics perform surgical or “in clinic” abortions, nearly all (396) of Planned Parenthood’s abortion performing clinics offer chemical abortions with mifepristone. Notably, at least 70 advertise that they make the pills available to women up to 12 weeks LMP (pregnancy measured from a woman’s last menstrual period), which is two weeks past the government’s official authorized 10 week protocol.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) limited use of these drugs to 10 weeks LMP because complications to women increased and efficacy decreased with increasing gestational age, that is, the older the baby about to be killed.

The last five years reveals a subtle but significant change in how late chemical abortions are offered at Planned Parenthood. There seems to be a unified shift in the extension of how long Planned Parenthood clinics offer chemical abortion by at least a week across the country, despite there being no change from the FDA extending the cut-off.

For example, in 2020, 286 clinics offered chemical abortions at 10 weeks, with no clinics offering chemical abortions after 10 weeks. However, in 2025, 282 clinics now offer abortion at 11 weeks and, as referenced above, more than 70 clinics offering it at 12 weeks.

Most of the Planned Parenthood clinics that do surgical abortions advertise their willingness to do late abortions. In 2025, 113 clinics indicate they are willing to perform abortions at 14 weeks gestation or more; 58 say they’ll perform abortions of at least 19 weeks. A dozen say they’ll do them at 23 weeks plus. Four in California and one in Oregon advertise abortions at 24 weeks, and one in Illinois says they’ll even take women at 26 weeks!

We do not yet know how many abortions Planned Parenthood performed in 2025. But the number it reported in its 2022-2023 Annual Report would make it responsible for nearly 38% of abortions the Guttmacher Institute says were performed in the U.S. in 2023.

Fluctuations in the States

One might assume that most of the closing clinics were in the states with new protections in place for the unborn after Dobbs. This is not entirely correct.

A lot of “red states” (ones passing pro-life protections after Dobbs) did see the number of abortion performing  Planned Parenthood clinics in their states drop to zero – Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas. (Kentucky and Louisiana each had two Planned Parenthood clinics in both 2020 and 2025, but neither offered abortions in either of our measured years. North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming either had no clinics previously or had a clinic that didn’t provide abortion in 2020 or 2025).

Planned Parenthood actually kept most of these clinics open after Dobbs, though, often as quasi “travel agencies” arranging for women to travel to affiliated clinics in other states which still legally performed abortions.

There were drops in the number of brick-and-mortar Planned Parenthood clinics in Indiana (-7), Texas (-5), Florida (-4). Idaho, Iowa (-2), Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Alabama (-1). However, the actual numbers of such clinics in other states that passed protections for the unborn – Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia – all stayed the same from 2020 to 2025.

At the same time, though, a few notoriously pro-abortion states also saw decreases in the number of clinics (or have announced shut downs by the summer of this year). Michigan will end up closing six clinics that were open in 2020, New York ten, Minnesota four, Connecticut two, and Alaska and Nevada one.

Some of these, of course, are now supplemented by virtual clinics ready to “pick up the slack” and offer services such as abortion that used to be available from clinics with physical locations. This is a clear sign that at least some affiliates are dealing with other issues such as management, staffing, budget or a dwindling customer base.

The numbers in a few states are complicated to interpret, perhaps because they initially sought to protect the unborn but saw those protections overturned by court decisions or referendums. For example, while Ohio saw its overall number of clinics drop by one, it added two new virtual clinics and actually added surgical and chemical abortion services to at least one clinic since 2020.

If one disregards the virtual clinics, only a handful of states actually added physical clinics between 2020 and 2025. They are Arkansas, California, Delaware, and Virginia. Arkansas, Delaware, and Virginia all added just one new brick-and-mortar site, though only the new clinics in Delaware and Virginia offered abortion.

Three of the four clinics California officially added were virtual, but the number of clinics in that state offering abortions rose by 14, a clear sign of abortion expansion. Most were clinics simply adding chemical abortion to their offerings, but there were two new surgical facilities added to California’s clinic list in 2025.

Several others similarly kept their clinic numbers largely the same, but increased their number of abortion-performing clinics, usually by the addition of chemical abortions.

Maryland and Maine both added chemical abortions to four clinics. Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington added three. Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Virginia added two. Kansas, New York, and Vermont added one. (Some of these involved the addition of a virtual clinic offering abortion pills.)

What these changes mean

All these changes together point not to an organization shutting down after Roe’s fall, but one adjusting to the new post-Dobbs reality.

The data appear to show Planned Parenthood keeping its abortion business going in two ways: (1) by keeping most old clinics in pro-life states open as travel agencies to send women to clinics in other states; and (2) by emphasizing chemical abortions, which require minimal staffing and facilities.

Planned Parenthood affiliates have expanded operations in states where abortion is still legal to handle more cases, especially at large centers near the border. Others have added customers by adding virtual clinics, prescribing abortion pills by webcam or phone and shipping pills to women’s homes so they never have to come to the clinic.

Though they continue to pursue legal challenges, Planned Parenthood does not appear to be performing abortions in states with the new protections. They will instead try and do what the law allows: send women to clinics in other states like California, Colorado, and Illinois, where there are no practical limits.

The rise of telemedicine that came with COVID and the ascendancy of abortion pills presented Planned Parenthood with both a challenge and an opportunity.

Women did not want to come into an old, dirty storefront clinic if they didn’t have to, and some of Planned Parenthood’s older clinics shuttered during the pandemic. But others adjusted and shifted some of their clients to virtual clinics, aided enormously by Biden-era deregulation of chemical abortion.

These new watered-down “safeguards” from Biden’s FDA authorized screening and prescription to be done online or by phone and allow pills to be mailed to women’s homes or made available for pickup from their local drugstore.

Many of the clinics that remain are large, modern mega-clinics, capable of handling large numbers of patients and hosting a busy virtual hub. So there may be fewer clinics overall and fewer low-level clinicians. This leaves a limited number of surgically trained abortionists to handle the later (more profitable) surgical cases at the bigger clinics and a handful of tech-savvy certified chemical abortionists to manage a lot of the virtual contacts.

There are overworked, underpaid staffers at the other clinics not happy with this top-heavy arrangement, but the organization considers it essential to Planned Parenthood’s ability to operate (NY Times 2/15/25).

Not to be missed is how this new financial arrangement and organizational model just happens to leave lots of money and staff for abortion advertising and advocacy.

Clearly, the abortion cause is still primary at Planned Parenthood. The organization’s motto is officially “Care. No Matter What,” but the data show it is more accurately “Abortion. No Matter What.”

LifeNews.com Note: Randall O’Bannon, Ph.D., is the director of education and research for the National Right to Life Committee.

The post Planned Parenthood Has Even More Centers Killing Babies in Abortions Than Ever Before appeared first on LifeNews.com.