Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

This story is of particular importance because Marge (MV is the name used by the court) has been approved for euthanasia again. Raikin writes:

Raikin further explains the dilemma:

The Canadian law provides no avenue for the judge to prevent a euthanasia death. Rankin reports:

A court challenge was launched based on the part of the law that allows euthanasia for people who are not terminally ill. Rankin states:

Rankin explains that even if the disability organizations are successful in their court challenge, that it won't happen in time to save the autistic woman. 

The father spent more than $150,000 on the court case and his daughter has been approved for euthanasia again.

Articles on this story:

• Euthanasia Prevention Coalition gains intervention standing in Calgary court case (Link).
• Calgary autistic woman is a victim of the "right to die" movement (Link).
  
• Great news: Judge prevents euthanasia death of Calgary autistic woman (Link). 
• Father of a 27-year-old autistic woman appeals court ruling in euthanasia decision (Link).
  

The story, both on Ukraine and Iran, is that President Trump wants a “deal” – and both deals are available – yet he seems nonetheless to have boxed himself in. Trump presents his Administration as being something rougher, meaner, and far less sentimental. It aspires to emerge, apparently, as also something more centralized, coercive, and radical.

In domestic policy, there may be some truth to this categorisation of the Trumpian ethos. In foreign policy, however, Trump tergiversates. The reason is not clear, but the fact of it clouds his prospects in the three areas vital to his “peace-maker” aspiration – Ukraine, Iran, and Gaza.

Whilst it is true that Trump’s true mandate derived from rampant economic and social discontent, rather than from his claims to be a peacemaker – yet the two key foreign policy ends remain important to maintaining momentum forward.

One possible answer is that in foreign negotiations, the President needs a grounded and experienced team to support him. And he does not have that.

In advance of sending his Envoy Witkoff to talk to President Putin, General Kellogg, it seems, presented Trump with a Versailles-type Armistice proposal: A vision of Russia on the ropes (i.e. the plan was cast in terms more appropriate to Russian capitulation). Kellogg’s proposal implied also that Trump would be doing Putin a “big favour” – by condescending to offer him a ladder down which to climb from his perch up the Ukraine “tree.” And this was exactly the line Trump took in January:

Having stated that Russia had lost one million men (in the war), Trump then went on to say that “Putin is destroying Russia by not making a deal.” He further claimed that Russia’s economy was in “ruins,” and most notably, said that he would consider sanctioning or tariffing Russia. In a subsequent Truth Social post, he wrote, “I’m going to do Russia – whose Economy is failing – and President Putin, a very big FAVOR.”

The President – duly briefed by his team – may have imagined that he would offer Putin a unilateral ceasefire and, hey presto, would have a quick deal to his credit.

All the premises on which the Kellogg plan was based (Russia’s vulnerability to sanctions, huge losses of men, and a stalemated war) were false. Did no one on Trump’s team then do any due diligence on the Kellogg strategy? It seems (lazily) to have taken the Korean war as its template, without due consideration of whether it be appropriate, or not.

In the Korean instance, the ceasefire along a Conflict Line preceded political considerations, which came only later. And which remain ongoing – and unresolved – until today.

By launching premature demands for an immediate ceasefire during talks with Russian officials in Riyadh, Trump invited rejection. Firstly, because the Trump Team had no concrete plan for how to implement a ceasefire, simply presuming rather that all such details could be settled post-hoc. In short, it was presented to Trump as a “quick win.”

Only it wasn’t.

The outcome was fore-ordained – the ceasefire was declined. It should not have been allowed to happen, given competent staff work. Had none of Trump’s team been listening since 14 June of last year when Putin very clearly outlined MFA the Russian position on a ceasefire? And which has been repeated regularly ever since. Apparently not.

Yet even so, when Trump’s Envoy, Witkoff, returned from a long meeting with President Putin to report on the latter’s personal, detailed explanation of why a political framework must precede any ceasefire (unlike Korea), Witkoff’s account reportedly was met with the flat retort that “the Ukrainians would never agree” from General Kellogg.

End of discussion, apparently. No decision taken.

Several more flights to Moscow have not altered the basic situation. Moscow awaits evidence that Trump is able to consolidate his position and can take charge of the situation. But until then, Moscow stands ready to facilitate a “rapprochement of positionality” – but will not approve a unilateral ceasefire. (And nor will Zelensky).

The puzzle here is why Trump doesn’t cut off US weapons and intelligence flows to Kiev, and tell the Europeans to butt out of Trump’s way? Does Kiev have some form of veto power? Does Team Trump not understand that the Europeans simply hope to disrupt Trump’s aim to normalise relations with Russia? They must do.

It seems that the “debate” (if you can call it that) in the Trump Team largely excluded real life factors. It took place at some high normative level, where certain facts and truths are simply assumed.

Maybe the Sunk Costs phenomenon weighed heavily – the longer you continue with a course of action (no matter how stupid), the less willing you are to change it. Changing it would be interpreted as acknowledging error – and acknowledging error is the first stage to losing power.

And there is a parallel with the talks with Iran.

Trump has a vision for a negotiated settlement with Iran that would achieve his objective of “no Iranian nuclear weapon” – though the aim itself, is something of a tautology given that the US intelligence community already has determined that Iran has NO nuclear weapon.

How do you stop something that is not occurring? Well, “intent” is an enormously difficult concept to ring-fence. So, the Team heads back to basics: to the original Rand Organisation’s firm doctrine that there exists no qualitative difference between peaceful and weapon-linked enrichment of uranium. So, no enrichment should be permitted.

Only Iran does have enrichment – thanks to the Obama concession as part of the JCPOA, which allowed it, subject to limitations.

Many ideas are floating around about how to square this circle – of Iran’s refusal to relinquish enrichment versus Trump’s “no capacity” to weaponise dictum. None of the ideas is new: Importing into Iran enriched feedstock; exporting Iran’s highly enriched uranium to Russia (something already done as part of the JCPOA), and having Russia build Iran’s nuclear energy capacity to power its industry. The problem is that Russia is already doing that too. It has one plant already up, and another in construction.

Israel naturally has its own proposals too: Root out all Iranian enrichment infrastructure and missile delivery capacity.

Only Iran will never agree to this.

So, the choice is either a jacked-up inspection and technical surveillance system in a JCPOA-like accord (which will not make either Israel or the pro-Israel Institutional leadership happy). Or military action.

Which takes us back to the Trump Team and the internecine divisions within the Pentagon.

Pete Hegseth sent the following message to Iran, posted on his social media account:

“We see your LETHAL support to The Houthis. We know exactly what you are doing. You know very well what the US Military is capable of – and you were warned. You will pay the CONSEQUENCE at the time and place of our choosing.”

Plainly, Hegseth is frustrated. As Larry Johnson has noted:

The Trump team has been labouring under [another] false assumption that the Biden folks did not make a serious effort to destroy the Houthis’ arsenal of missiles and drones. The Trumpers believed that they could bomb the Houthis into submission. Instead, the US is demonstrating to all countries in the region the limits of its naval and air power … Despite more than 600 bombing sorties, the Houthis continue to launch missiles and drones at US ships in the Red Sea and targets inside Israel.

So, Team Trump has waded firstly into one conflict (Yemen), and secondly, into a complex negotiation with Iran, again seemingly without doing its homework on Yemen. Is this down to group think again:

“In a situation of uncertainty like the present, solidarity comes to be seen as an end in itself, and nobody wants to be accused of “weakening the West” or “strengthening Iran.” If you have to be wrong, best be wrong in the company of as many others as possible.”

Will Israel let this pass? It is beavering away with General Kurilla (the US General in command at CENTCOM) in the bunker under the Israeli Defence Department – preparing plans for a joint attack on Iran. Israel appears very keen on his work.

Yet, the fundamental impediment to achieving an accord with Iran is more crucial – in that, as presently construed, the US approach to the negotiations breaks all the rules about how to initiate a weapons-limitation treaty.

On the one hand, there is Israel with a triad of nuclear weapons systems and delivery capacities: from submarines, aircraft and by missile. Israel has also threatened the use of nuclear weapons – recently in Gaza and earlier during the first Iraq war, in response to Saddam Hussein’s Scud missile capacity.

The missing principle here is any modicum of reciprocity. Iran is said to threaten Israel – and Israel regularly threatens Iran. And Israel, of course, wants Iran neutered and disarmed and insists itself be untouched (no NPT, no IAEA inspections, no acknowledgment).

The arms-limitation treaties initiated by JF Kennedy with Khruschev derived from the successful reciprocal negotiation by which the US withdrew its missiles from Turkey before Russia removed its own missiles from Cuba.

It must be clear to Trump and Witkoff that such a lopsided proposal as theirs for Iran bears no relation to geo-political realities – and is therefore likely to fail (sooner or later). Team Trump thus, is cornering itself into military action against Iran – which they will then own.

Trump does not want that; Iran does not want that. So, has this been adequately thought through? Has the Yemen experience been taken fully into account? Has the Trump Team mooted some off-ramp?

One creative way out of the dilemma – and which might restore at least some semblance to a classical arms limitation treaty exercise – would be for Trump to air the notion that now is time for Israel to enter the NPT and to have its weapons inspected by the IAEA.

Will Trump do that? No.

It then becomes obvious why.

This Trump transformation of America was intended to be rebuilt as America First.

Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation.

I find myself back in Rome. More than three years have passed since my last visit, but the place seems barely to have changed: steadfast; grandiose; eternal. Its monumental magnificence and gentle decay are disturbed only by its ubiquitous, quotidian chaos.

The city’s mood hovers between anticipation and indifference. Italians are not yet so visible in St Peter’s Square, which remains a haven for gawping tourists and youth groups on jubilee jaunts. Yet on Wednesday afternoon the cardinal electors will make their solemn way into the Sistine Chapel to take their oaths. The splendidly named Cardinal Cantalamessa will preach to them about their responsibilities. Then the sacred spectacle will begin.

The mood amongst Romans may be relaxed but amongst journalists it is febrile. “Have you heard the latest about Pietro Parolin?” one asks me. “How many supporters do you think Erdo has? What about Tagle?” These are exciting times for those with newly acquired, amateur interests in ecclesiastical politics.

Pierbattista Pizzaballa’s star has waxed and waned. The consensus seems to be that he is hugely impressive and has the gravitas to be a great pontiff, but it is not yet his time. The Vatican rumour mill now churns furiously towards Robert Prevost. An American from Chicago, this urbane cardinal ought to have no chance at all in the Vatican’s brave old world. After all, Donald Trump has called for an American pope, which is surely the kiss of death.

The cardinals are a reflexively anti-American electorate at the best of times. And yet Prevost has some surprising attractions to his peers. Yes, he is American – but he is also half-Latino and has spent half his life in Latin America. He’s the ecclesiastical equivalent of a dual passport holder – an outsider-insider who has run a Peruvian diocese and now heads the Dicastery for Bishops. At 69 he is about the right age; he has the right friends and moderate credentials.

The cardinals may finally recognise the value of having a native English speaker as pope. English, a global language as Latin once was, is the bedrock of modern communication. Imagine a rhetorically-inspired pope with fluency in Anglo-cultural politics and a true feeling for our language’s expressive potential. Such a pope could be authoritative and inspirational.

The feeling was that Cardinal Tagle could be such a man, but that has been subsiding. Like Pope Francis, his skill is not the word but the gesture. Is that enough for the complicated arguments and negotiations that must follow this election? His karaoke performance of John Lennon’s “Imagine”, currently doing the rounds, is also surprisingly awkward. A pope who sings “imagine there’s no heaven” is not exactly on message.

Meanwhile, Parolin staggers on, weighed down by a thousand enmities and grubby deals. Too many do not trust him. They point to his lack of charisma and to the fine line between the consummate bureaucrat and the man who believes in nothing except process. China is also a problem for him. Did he sell the Church out to the Communists? What was the basis of Francis’s decision to do so – and was it practical or just hopelessly naïve?

If Parolin sinks or swims on wider assessments of Francis’s record he will struggle with the conservative cardinals. This faction is said to be the most organised going into the days ahead. But it would have to be, given that they conspicuously lack the numbers to control the narrative.

Officially, their aim is to secure the election for the Hungarian Peter Erdo. In practice,  however, it is hard to see the constellation of events which gets Erdo to even half of the eighty-nine votes required to be chosen. More likely, his supporters want to show their power as a voting block and use that to influence which moderate candidate emerges when Parolin and Tagle fall back.

The German Cardinal Müller has already sounded off about the “gay lobby”, trying to make this election about “culture war” issues rather than questions of Church governance per se. That reminds Catholics of what divides rather than unites them and may be unwise. It also draws attention to one of the more curious hypocrisies on the part of some African cardinals at this conclave. They now reject such openness as a Western colonial value. But if it is a Western colonial construct, alien to Africans, then what is Christianity itself?

The historian in me wants to point out some obvious truths, but the other cardinals must be more conciliatory than I would be. After all, each of them has to work together for the good of the Church after the new Pope ascends his (these days somewhat proverbial) throne.

Having listened to all the gossip and the arguments, do I have any idea who will emerge on that holy balcony in, presumably, somewhat less than seven days’ time? Not really, and I’m sure it should be that way. An analogy I’ve deployed for media work all week is that the conclave is sort of like a magic trick.

A hundred-and-thirty-odd men in red cram into a wooden box together, there’s a puff of smoke, and one alone from amongst them emerges in white. It’s important that no one sees the wires.

Photo: A cross and a cardinals cassock is seen for sale in a shop near the vatican on May 05, 2025 in Rome, Italy. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

The post In Rome’s shadows, smoke and speculation: the conclave’s political ballet begins first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post In Rome’s shadows, smoke and speculation: the conclave’s political ballet begins appeared first on Catholic Herald.

The Planned Parenthood clinic of Omaha, Nebraska, is experiencing a staffing crisis that abortion advocates claim is the result of corporate executives’ indifference, a Nebraska newsroom reported May 1.

The Flatwater Free Press reported that the clinic’s recent struggles have included burnout, insufficient training, unionization of Planned Parenthood North Central States employees, and high turnover. Training challenges led to a stay on rapid tests for two sexually transmitted diseases, according to the news outlet. All the factors have led to breaks with standard procedures while abortions are performed. The last licensed nurse trained to assist with abortions resigned from the clinic in April.

The Omaha clinic is also under major construction at the moment, resulting in chaos and requests to temporarily close the clinic or limit abortions and other services. However, management ignored the requests, prompting more employees to quit.

Follow LifeNews on the MeWe social media network for the latest pro-life news free from Facebook’s censorship!

Melissa Forsyth, who formerly served as the senior director of health centers for Planned Parenthood North Central States, said that while construction and turnover are factors in the staffing crisis, the issue runs deeper.

“… I think when it all comes down to it … I don’t think they [employees] felt heard. I don’t think they felt respected in their work,” she said, according to the Flatwater Free Press. “And you do that for so long that you eventually just decide to move on.”

The Flatwater Free Press added that Planned Parenthood’s management claims employees were never pressured to break protocol, arguing that Nebraska’s systemic health care challenges caused the staffing shortage.

Management is also blaming the state’s pro-life legislation. Nebraska currently protects life in most cases after 12 weeks of pregnancy. State legislators are also considering a bill that would require abortion facilities to cremate or bury the bodies of aborted babies.

“We are working within and against these trends to build structures that will expand care long term,” Planned Parenthood North Central States spokesperson Erin Heisler Wagner stated, according to the Flatwater Free Press. “It is not easy work, and we will experience ups and downs, but we are committed to providing care to our patients and doing whatever it takes to make that happen.”

However, the issues aren’t isolated to Nebraska, the Flatwater Free Press reported. Planned Parenthood facilities across the nation are struggling to retain employees. The New York Times recently found that most of the abortion giant’s funds are used for paying legal and political expenses.

Nonetheless, a shortage of abortion employees means more unborn lives saved. According to the Flatwater Free Press, employees at the Omaha facility said at the beginning of May that only three abortions had been performed since mid-March, down from multiple abortions per week in January.

LifeNews Note: Hannah Hiester writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.

The post Nebraska Planned Parenthood is Falling Apart, Babies Saved From Abortion appeared first on LifeNews.com.

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion Monday seeking to dismiss a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for failing to properly regulate the abortion pill mifepristone—an increasingly controversial drug linked to serious harm.

CatholicVote Vice President Joshua Mercer reacted to the move by reiterating his organization’s call for the administration to better regulate mifepristone, but also pointed out that the DOJ’s motion could be calculated to better position pro-life cases.

“The Trump administration’s commitments and actions on the pro-life front suggest to me that this move by the DOJ could be a procedural strategy, hedging against ceding an executive agency’s power to take meaningful and lasting action on mifepristone,” Mercer said.

“But both Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and President Trump have signaled their concern about the Biden administration’s FDA failing to regulate this harmful drug,” Mercer added, “and we will continue to urgently call on them to address it. Despite the procedural questions raised by this case, the Trump administration must do all it can to protect women from the manifest harms associated with mifepristone.”

Follow LifeNews on the MeWe social media network for the latest pro-life news free from Facebook’s censorship!

The case was first filed in 2022 by a coalition of pro-life doctors called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The group challenged the FDA’s removal of key safety protocols surrounding mifepristone, including the requirement for in-person doctor visits before dispensing the drug.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, ruling that the original plaintiffs lacked standing.

In response, the states of Idaho, Missouri, and Kansas moved to intervene, arguing that the FDA’s loose standards force their state Medicaid programs to cover the cost of treating women who suffer complications from the drug.

The DOJ now contends that those states lack standing to sue in the Northern District of Texas.

“Aside from this litigation, the States do not dispute that their claims have no connection to the Northern District of Texas,” federal attorneys wrote. “The states cannot keep alive a lawsuit in which the original plaintiffs were held to lack standing, those plaintiffs have now voluntarily dismissed their claims, and the States’ own claims have no connection to this District.”

The DOJ also argued that several state claims—including objections to the FDA’s 2016 decision to expand the approved usage window from seven to ten weeks—fall outside the statute of limitations.

Although the FDA continues to call mifepristone “safe and effective,” recent evidence increasingly contradicts the claim.

A new study revealed that nearly 11% of women experienced severe or life-threatening complications after taking the drug, sparking growing concern among medical professionals and lawmakers.

In one widely reported case, a Texas woman discovered her husband had secretly laced her drinks with abortion pills in an attempt to kill their unborn child. He was later charged with felony assault and sentenced to prison.

Though the DOJ is seeking to end the current lawsuit, it acknowledged that the states can still pursue legal action in other courts.

“The States are free to pursue their claims in a District where venue is proper,” the DOJ stated.

Earlier this year, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said President Donald Trump asked him to review the drug’s safety profile.

“President Trump has made it clear to me that… he wants me to look at safety issues,” Kennedy said during his January confirmation, adding that he would direct relevant federal agencies to evaluate the matter.

LifeNews Note: Elise DeGeeter writes for CatholicVote, where this column originally appeared.

The post Pro-Life Group Calls on Trump to Limit Abortion Pill to Protect Women, Save Babies appeared first on LifeNews.com.

Will America Survive?

Paul Craig Roberts

The foreign policy of the United States is in the hands of the least capable, most uninformed, and most reckless morons the American education system has yet produced, and their successors, if any, will be worse.

American aggression toward the world is hidden under a euphemism:  “national defense.”  In past years before  euphemisms took over from reality, the Secretary of Defense was known as the Secretary of War.

Washington conducted wars against Mexico. Against the Confederate States of America.  Against the native American Indians. Against Spain from whom Washington seized Cuba and the Philippines. Against varied Central and South American countries–remember US Marine Commander Smedley Butler, twice decorated with America’s highest honor, who said that he and his US Marines were the enforcement squad in Latin America for the United Fruit Company and the New York Banks who were exploiting Latin America to the hilt, backed up by the bayonets of the US Marine Corps.

The name of the War Department changed, but we went on to wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Caribbean, overthrowing various countries in central and South America.  Then in Africa where leaders and governments were overthrown.  Then in Yugoslavia.  Then in the Middle East where Washington eliminated Israel’s opponents for Israel. Then in South Ossetia against Russia.  Then in Ukraine again against Russia. And now the US has wars pending against Iran and China, while continuing the one against Russia by shifting the burden to Europe.

In no way is this “national defense.”  

We are witnessing the continuation of Washington’s policy of hegemony.  Washington negotiates with Russia, China, Iran, for one purpose only. To present them with “peace agreements” that they cannot possibly accept in order for Washington to say it tried for peace, but Russia, China, and Iran refused the peace offers.

The “peace offers” amount to the surrender of sovereignty of Russia, China, and Iran. They have to conform their policies to Washington’s instructions.  Iran has to dismantle its national defense and destroy its conventional missiles.  Iran can’t sell any oil to China or anyone else. Iran can’t enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Russia can’t have all of its conquests of the Russian territories in Ukraine.  Ukraine won’t be demilitarized. Russia will be punished with more sanctions if Putin doesn’t agree to a ceasefire before he knows what the deal is.  Ukraine can have de facto NATO membership with a mutual security clause with the West. China can’t continue succeeding economically more than America. Far from renouncing the Paul Wolfowitz Doctrine of American Hegemony, President Trump espouses it.

America is not as strong as Washington thinks it is.  Actually, America is very weak, as is every Western country, not merely militarily, but also emotionally, spiritually. Generations of denunciation of Western Civilization by Western universities have created populations unsure of who they are.  The damage universities have done to the belief system is extensive.  In America’s coming wars with China, Iran, and Russia, what are the American youths dying for except Israel and the profits of the armaments industries?

Why should Americans die for Ukraine and Israel and the profits of armaments industries?  No one asks or answers this question.

The relationship between men and women and between ethnic citizens and their tyrannical Western governments are severed perhaps beyond repair. The belief system throughout the Western World has been dismantled by decades of White Liberal and Jewish propaganda that the West, all of it, is racist, misogynist, homophobic, and anti-semitic and must make amends by accepting second class citizenship for oppressive white heterosexuals–the “Trump Deplorables,” an ethnic and gender class that in Jean Raspail’s novel, The Camp of the Saints,  is eliminated from the earth by its own loss of belief in itself.

How can an American believe in himself when he is endlessly told that he is the source of all evil, all oppression? The indoctrination of white kids against their race begins in early education with critical race theory and aversive racism. Can Washington’s war propagandists create larger monsters out of Putin, Xi, and Iran than Western Universities have created out of white people?

So, here is the situation:  On the one hand the neoconservatives and the America First Liberals tell Americans that they are ordained for rule.  On the other hand the Democrats and the left tell Americans that they are hopeless racists who have to be displaced.

The Trump regime is creating a war scenario that America cannot win. Let’s just consider one of the many possible developments.  Washington withdraws from the war in Ukraine, leaving it to Europe, but before Washington can engage China, Netanyahu sics his American puppet on Iran.  Iran, unlike Putin, decides to fight. There go the American aircraft carriers in the region. There go the American bases in the Middle East. Iran’s Russian supplied air defense systems eliminates a large percentage of the American Air Force. America is handed a resounding military defeat.  Out come the nuclear weapons.

Putin’s inability to make decisions is aiding and abetting Washington’s self destruction. Putin says that Russia stands alone against the West which is attempting to finish off Russia by breaking the Federation into a number of smaller countries, as Washington did to the Soviet Union, creating Ukraine for the first time in its history as an independent state, one now only 30 years old, a Washington creation.

Does Putin understand that the peace negotiations are a fraud intentionally designed to fail?  What is actually going on is that America’s intended wars with Russia and China are being sequenced, because the US lacks the strength to take on all its chosen opponents simultaneously. 

Washington’s war against Russia in Ukraine is being turned over to Europe under the pretense of a US/EU split.  As neither Zelensky nor Putin can accept Trump’s terms, Trump can extract America from the conflict by walking away, leaving the continuation of the conflict to the  EU. The American establishment will continue to make money from this conflict by selling the weapons to the Europeans and make more money by ramping up war with China.  

The conditions Trump requires of Iran are so unrealistic as to indicate a total lack of seriousness. They amount to stripping Iran of all possibility of existence as a sovereignty nation. Trumps’ announcement of US sanctions on every country that buys oil from Iran is mindless.  Washington is trying to cut China off from oil like FDR did Japan, thus leading to the war that FDR wanted.  Trump has either made a deal with the American establishment or his government has.

Look at the picture with a clear eye.  

What and how is Russia endangering the West that justifies war to suppress the threat?  Russia has threatened no Western country and has done nothing but to plead for a mutual security agreement with the West, which the West has refused.

What actions have Iran taken against the West?  None.  Iran is in the crosshairs  because Iran supports Israel’s last remaining enemies, the small group of Houthis in small Yemen and the decapitated Hezbollah militia in small Lebanon.  Washington eliminated for Israel at the cost of American lives and money Israel’s enemies in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.  The Arab world is no more. America wiped it out for Israel.

As Norman Podhoretz made clear in the Jewish journal Commentary, the purpose of America’s 21st century’s wars in the Middle East is to overthrow Arab states in the way of Greater Israel.  And Washington complied.  Today the only remaining Arab state is Saudi Arabia, and not long ago an Israeli minister added half of Saudi Arabia to the map of Greater Israel. Israel now occupies part of Syria and says it is there to stay.  This week Israel announced that the total conquest of Palestine was under way.

The first quarter of the 21st Century has been Israel’s.  Israel’s American puppet has destroyed for Israel, at the expense of American lives and money, Israel’s Arab enemies.  Now Netanyahu is going to sic his dumbshit puppets in Washington on Iran.

The Death of Palestine

Israel approves full ‘conquest’ of Gaza 

The reported plan includes the forced relocation of Palestinians and occupation of the territory

https://www.rt.com/news/616801-israel-plan-gaza-conquest/  

Each day between now and the May 7 conclave to elect a successor to Pope Francis, John Allen is offering a profile of a different papabile, the Italian term for a man who could be pope. There’s no scientific way to identity these contenders; it’s mostly a matter of weighing reputations, positions held and influence wielded over the years. There’s also certainly no guarantee one of these candidates will emerge wearing white; as an old bit of Roman wisdom has it, “He who enters a conclave as a pope exits as a cardinal.” These are, however, the leading names drawing buzz in Rome right now, at least ensuring they will get a look. Knowing who these men are also suggests issues and qualities other cardinals see as desirable heading into the election.

ROME – At times there can be an odd dynamic to a papal election, almost like a tape delay, according to which candidates get their real bite at the apple in the conclave after the one in which they attracted the most attention.

Such was the case for Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina, who was a hot pick in 2005 and the runner-up in that conclave, yet he didn’t get elected until eight years later following the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.

The reason for the tape delay is often simple: age. When a candidate first bursts into prominence, they’re often judged too young, in the sense that their papacy would be too long. By the time another few years have passed they’re often right in the wheelhouse, with the ironic result that their chances go up even as conventional wisdom says their moment has already passed.

If there’s a potential contender for whom the same tape delay dynamic might play out today, it could well be 79-year-old Cardinal Fernando Filoni, who was widely mentioned as a possibility in 2013 but has somewhat flown below radar this time around.

Should his fellow cardinals decide to dust off Filoni’s résumé, they’d be reminded of a major selling point that came up twelve years ago: “The pope who didn’t blink when bombs fell on Baghdad.”

The reference is to April 2003, when Filoni was serving as the papal ambassador in Iraq. At a time when other diplomats fled for safety, as well as U.N. officials and journalists, Filoni refused to leave, saying he couldn’t abandon the local Catholic community and other suffering Iraqis.

“If a pastor flees in moments of difficulty,” he said later, “the sheep are lost.”

Filoni remained in the country for the aftermath of the war, as Christians found themselves primary targets amid rising chaos. He refused to adopt special security measures, wanting to face the same risks as locals who didn’t have access to guards and armored vehicles. He said his aim was to be seen “as an Iraqi, by the Iraqis”. To this day, the pectoral cross he wears is a gift given to him by the Iraqi Muslim community for not abandoning them in their darkest hour.

That choice almost cost him dearly in February 2006, when a car bomb went off outside the nunciature, demolishing a garden wall and smashing window panes, but luckily leaving no one hurt. Afterward, a Muslim contractor showed up with 30 workers to repair the damage out of respect for the solidarity Filoni had shown.

Born in Taranto, Italy, in 1946, Filoni’s seminary studies coincided with the period of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), and his episcopal motto is Lumen gentium Christus, recalling the council’s dogmatic constitution on the Church.

In a 2012 interview, Filoni said one of the ways he survived the upheaval of the 1970s, when he was doing graduate study, was by living in a parish rather than a college. As a result, he said, he kept contact with the practical concerns of real people instead of getting caught up in ideological debates.

Filoni earned doctorates in both philosophy and canon law from the Pontifical Lateran University. He also has a degree from Rome’s Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali, a prestigious secular institution, where he studied “techniques of public opinion”, specialising in journalism.

He entered the Vatican’s diplomatic service and was posted to a series of increasingly challenging assignments. He served in Sri Lanka from 1982 to 1983; Iran from 1983 to 1985, shortly after the Khomeini revolution; Brazil from 1989 to 1992; Hong Kong from 1992 to 2001, where he opened a “study mission” on mainland China; Jordan and Iraq from 2001 to 2006; and the Philippines from 2006 to 2007.

These were hardly pleasure cruises. Filoni was in Tehran during the bloodiest period of the Iran/Iraq war and in China for the upheaval caused by the reforms of Deng Xiaoping.

Filoni is especially well-versed on China, given his decade in Hong Kong and his fascination with the country and its people, though he doesn’t carry any of the baggage for the controversial deal with China regarding the appointment of bishops struck under Pope Francis.

From June 2007 to May 2011, Filoni held the all-important job of sostituto, or “substitute”, effectively the pope’s chief of staff. That aspect of his background is a mixed blessing because it means Filoni was on the scene for a couple of the more spectacular implosions of Benedict’s papacy, including the cause célèbre surrounding a Holocaust-denying traditionalist bishop in 2009 and the surreal Boffo affair in early 2010. On the other hand, most people blame Benedict’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, for those miscues, and give Filoni credit for trying to ameliorate them as best he could.

From 2011 to 2019, Filoni headed the Vatican’s Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, giving him a broad sense of the situation of the Church in the developing world. Since 2019 he’s served as the Grand Master of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem, putting him once again in touch with the Church in the Middle East. In 2021, Filoni accompanied Pope Francis on his pastoral visit to Iraq.

The case for Filoni?

Many cardinals have said they want a pope with global vision, especially someone who can embrace the two-thirds of the 1.2 billion Catholics in the world today who live outside the West. Arguably, nobody among the 133 electors has broader life experience and understanding of the diverse situations around the world than Filoni.

In addition, his long Vatican experience creates a reasonable hope that he knows where the bodies are buried and could get its operations in order. At the very least, he wouldn’t require much on-the-job training in terms of how the place works.

In an era of deep geopolitical uncertainty, Filoni may strike many cardinals as a safe pair of hands, someone with the diplomatic background and personal experience to be able to play on the world stage and not be out of his depth.

In general, Filoni could strike electors as a choice for broad continuity with the geopolitical and social agenda of the Francis papacy, but greater personal stability and reserve – which, frankly, might be a very attractive option.

The case against?

The mere fact of being a diplomat might count against Filoni with some electors, motivated by the motto “less diplomacy and more doctrine”. Concerns in this camp may be augmented by the fact that on most of the contested issues in internal Catholic life, from the blessing of persons in same-sex unions to women deacons and beyond, Filoni really doesn’t have a clear track record.

It’s also true that aside from a few brief stints in parishes as a young priest, he has little pastoral experience and has never run a diocese. Some cardinals regard such in-the-trenches seasoning as a prerequisite, on the assumption that it’s hard to understand today’s pastoral realities if you’ve never actually served as a pastor.

Perhaps most basically, while no one questions Filoni’s courage or integrity, there are reservations about his charisma. Some see him as a relatively grey figure, better suited to a behind-the-scenes roles than being the front man. Sceptics wonder if he would really have the capacity to inspire and to move people that’s obviously desirable in an Evangelist-in-Chief.

For all those reasons, Filoni probably has to be considered a long shot. But every now and then, long shots do come through … and for a man who once braved American bombs, very little at this point probably would rattle him much.

Photo: Cardinal Fernando Filoni, Pope Francis’ special envoy to Iraq, leads a mass for Easter celebrations, attended by Iraqi Christians who fled the violence in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, on April 4, 2015 in Arbil, the capital of the Kurdish autonomous region in northern Iraq. (Photo by Safin HAMID / AFP) 

The post ‘Papabile’ of the Day: Cardinal Fernando Filoni, the diplomat who braved Baghdad first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post ‘Papabile’ of the Day: Cardinal Fernando Filoni, the diplomat who braved Baghdad appeared first on Catholic Herald.

While the sede of St. Peter remains officially vacante for the next couple of days at least, it’s a unique moment to reflect very frankly on the painful pontificate of Francis without fear of being labeled a sedevacantist. In a recent op-ed for OnePeterFive, Danielle Heckenkamp urged Catholics not to “focus on the confusion and the errors of the past twelve years” and to instead marvel that God’s…

Source

One of Pope Francis’ popemobiles is to be transformed into a mobile clinic for children in Gaza.

Not long before his death, Pope Francis donated one of his popemobiles to be converted into a mobile clinic for children in the war-torn region.

The popemobile in question was reportedly the one Pope Francis used when visiting Bethlehem in May 2014, during his historic visit to the Holy Land. The vehicle has since remained on display in a public square in Bethlehem.

“The popemobile has been refurbished and upgraded to fulfil a new and hopeful mission: to provide medical assistance to injured and malnourished children who currently have no access to any type of health care,” Peter Brune, secretary-general of Caritas Sweden explained.

The former popemobile, which has been named “Vehicle of Hope”, will contain basic medical equipment including rapid diagnostic kits, vaccines, syringes, oxygen, suture materials, medication and other vital supplies.

Pope Francis himself, in his final months, asked Caritas Jerusalem to enact the initiative in response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where hundreds of thousands of children are living without access for food, clean water or medical care. The vehicle will be operated by medics and drivers from Caritas. 

About a million Palestinian children have been displaced as a result of fighting between Hamas and Israeli forces.

Pope Francis’s concern for the plight of the Palestinians antagonised the Israeli government during his papacy.

In November, the Pope said the international community should examine if the Israeli military actions in Gaza amounted to genocide. He described the humanitarian situation inside the enclave as “shameful”.

Francis had a particular concern for Gaza and made regular phone calls to a priest who runs the only Catholic church in the enclave.

Vatican News, the Holy See’s official news outlet, said: “Pope Francis’s legacy of peace continues to shine in our conflict-ridden world.

“The closeness he showed to the most vulnerable during his earthly mission is radiating even after his death, and this most recent surprise is no exception: his popemobile, the very vehicle from which he waved and was close to millions of faithful all around the world, is being transformed into a mobile health unit for the children of Gaza.”

The mobile clinic will be deployed in the Palestinian territory as soon as humanitarian access is restored, with the mission of “providing basic care in the most isolated areas and reminding the world that children’s rights and dignity must always be protected”, Brune explained.

“It is not just a medical tool but a symbol that the world has not forgotten the children of Gaza,” Brune added.

Photo: A man holds up a phone for Father Gabriel Romanelli, Parish Priest of the Roman Catholic Church of the Holy Family, to have a video conference call with Pope Francis as the latter blesses the congregation during Christmas Eve mass at the church in the Zaytoun neighbourhood of Gaza City on December 24. (Photo by OMAR AL-QATTAA / AFP)

The post Pope Francis’s popemobile transformed into mobile clinic for Gaza children first appeared on Catholic Herald.

The post Pope Francis’s popemobile transformed into mobile clinic for Gaza children appeared first on Catholic Herald.

An email from a reader of ours led with the title "PCE is quite confusing." He asked if we would explain the difference between the monthly PCE prices index and the quarterly PCE prices, i.e., the GDP deflator, accompanying the GDP report. Given the importance of monthly PCE prices to the Fed and their meeting tomorrow, it's worth answering the question publicly.

Last week, we learned that the quarterly PCE price deflator was up 3.7% on an annualized basis. However, monthly PCE prices were flat. While the two inflation measures share the same name, PCE (personal consumption expenditures), they measure different things. Monthly PCE prices, the Fed’s favored inflation gauge, track price changes in consumer goods and services. The quarterly PCE price gauge is an index designed to subtract the impact of inflation from the GDP figure to arrive at real GDP. Accordingly, the deflator uses a broader measure of goods and services, including items not directly tied to household spending.

Of additional consideration, the quarterly PCE is more prone to large revisions than the monthly data. Thus, the monthly reading is more reliable. The graph below shows that the two inflation gauges track each other well on an annualized basis. However, there is a slight gap at the moment between them. While month PCE prices fell by 0.04% last month, they were up .44% and .30% in the prior two months. Thus, its quarterly annualized change is approximately 3.1%, not as much of a divergence as the recent PCE data portends.

What To Watch Today

Earnings

Economy

Market Trading Update

Yesterday, we noted the recent technical setup suggests a near-term correction after a sharp rally from the "Liberation Day" woes. Despite the short-term overbought conditions, corrections will likely remain contained above recent support levels for a couple of reasons. The first, as noted on "X," the share repurchase (stock buybacks) window has now reopened, and the sharp rise in buybacks has provided the necessary support for the recent rally. Those buybacks will continue through May.

Secondly, the breadth of the market has improved markedly. As shown, market breadth has improved significantly with the number of stocks trading above their 50 and 200-DMA rising sharply, and the NYSE Advance-Decline line testing previous highs.

This data suggests that while corrections are likely, they should be well contained to previous broken-resistance levels, turning them into support. The weekly sell signal in the bottom panel is one thing to watch closely. When that signal reverts to a buy, it will be time to return equity exposure to target weights. For now, while a correction back to recent lows is possible, the higher probability is that any correction that reverts the market toward 5500 or 5300 will likely find buyers willing to step in.

However, with that stated, it is certainly possible that later this summer, as the impact of tariffs is fully recognized, the economy slows, and earnings are revised lower, the market will likely encounter another volatility spat. As I noted in yesterday's blog on "Resistance Is Futile:"

If you want my best guess, here it is:

• We’ve likely seen the market lows for this year.
• We’ve likely seen the highs as well.

Navigating a market trapped between support and resistance becomes emotionally challenging. Investors face sharp rallies into resistance — and retracements back to support — wearing down sentiment until mistakes happen.

Therefore, this is how we are positioned in this current and uncertain market environment.

• Primarily long equities, as the market structure remains bullish.
• Increased cash levels to manage policy and growth uncertainty.
• Short S&P 500 index to hedge downside risk.

We also recommend a healthy portfolio and risk management regimen.

1. Tighten up stop-loss levels to current support levels for each position.
2. Hedge portfolios against more significant market declines.
3. Take profits in positions that have been big winners.
4. Sell laggards and losers.
5. Raise cash and rebalance portfolios to target weightings.

Here’s the hard truth: you can’t measure risk in advance.

Sectors Rotate Down And To The Right

Within the first SimpleVisor screenshot below, the graph to the right of the sector absolute and relative analysis charts the movement of each sector score over the last two weeks. Interestingly, we notice that many sectors' paths have moved down and to the right. Consequently, the absolute scores are increasing for those moving in that direction, while the relative scores generally decrease. In other words, most sectors are seeing their technicals improve but are underperforming the market.

The second graphic shows that despite the decent rally over the last few weeks, many absolute and relative scores remain near fair value. Typically, we would expect to see higher absolute scores. This is a sign the market remains cautious. However, if the market continues to rally, there remains a decent amount of upside before sectors and factors become overbought on an absolute or relative analysis.

The second graphic shows that the Momentum ETF is very overbought versus the S&P 500. The third graphic breaks down its holdings. As you can see, some of its largest holdings are decently overbought on an absolute and relative analysis.

Resistance Is Futile For Bulls And Bears

“Resistance is futile” was a sentence that struck fear in the hearts of Trekkie fans during “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” specifically in both of the “Best Of Worlds” and “First Contact” episodes. In those episodes, the “Starship Enterprise” crew encountered a species called the “Borg.” The Borg’s primary purpose was to achieve “perfection” by assimilating other beings and technologies into their “hive mind,” known as the “Collective.” They viewed assimilation as a means to expand their collective knowledge, power, and ultimately, their vision of a perfect and harmonious existence. The reason “resistance was futile” was that the centralized control, driven by the Borg Queen, allowed for swift and coordinated actions across vast distances. At the same time, the assimilation process threatened to erase individuality and homogenize the galaxy. 

I could go on, but you are asking yourself two questions. First, is Lance a total sci-fi geek? Second, what does this have to do with the markets and investing? The answer to the first question is “yes,” as I grew up with William Shatner as James T. Kirk in the original Gene Roddenberry “Star Trek.”

However, let’s dig deeper into the second question. READ MORE...

Tweet of the Day

“Want to achieve better long-term success in managing your portfolio? Here are our 15-trading rules for managing market risks.”

Please subscribe to the daily commentary to receive these updates every morning before the opening bell.

If you found this blog useful, please send it to someone else, share it on social media, or contact us to set up a meeting.

The post PCE Is Quite Confusing appeared first on RIA.

Rising interest rates are a powerful force in the financial world, capable of reshaping markets and shifting investment dynamics. As the Federal Reserve raises rates to combat inflation or stabilize economic growth, the ripple effect is felt across stocks, bonds, and real estate. While these rate hikes may be out of investors’ control, adapting your investment strategy can help you manage risks and even uncover new opportunities.

How Rising Interest Rates Affect Different Asset Classes

Stocks

Interest rate increases typically lead to higher borrowing costs for companies, which can reduce profit margins and curb growth. This especially impacts growth stocks—like tech companies—that rely on borrowing for expansion. On the other hand, sectors like financials (banks, insurance companies) may benefit, as they tend to profit from higher lending rates.

Rising rates can also dampen investor sentiment and reduce stock valuations, as future earnings are discounted more heavily. This can result in short-term volatility, even if long-term fundamentals remain strong.

Bonds

The bond market is perhaps the most directly affected by rising rates. When interest rates rise, bond prices generally fall. That’s because newly issued bonds pay higher interest, making existing bonds with lower rates less attractive.

Long-duration bonds are especially vulnerable. However, this doesn’t mean investors should avoid bonds altogether—shorter-term bonds or bond laddering strategies can help mitigate interest rate risk while still providing income.

Real Estate

Rising interest rates often lead to higher mortgage rates, which can reduce demand for housing and slow price appreciation. For investors in real estate investment trusts (REITs), rising rates may lead to declining property values and increased costs for leveraged properties.

However, not all real estate reacts the same way. Commercial real estate with strong lease structures or properties in high-demand areas may remain resilient. Additionally, real estate can still serve as an inflation hedge, especially if rental income keeps pace with rising prices.

Strategies for Adapting Your Investment Portfolio

To weather rising interest rates, investors may need to adjust their approach and rebalance their portfolios with long-term resilience in mind.

Adjust Asset Allocation

A diversified portfolio is always a good foundation, but rising rates may prompt a closer look at your current asset mix. Reducing exposure to long-duration bonds, rebalancing stock holdings, and considering rate-sensitive sectors (like financials or energy) can help offset interest rate risks.

Explore Short-Term and Floating Rate Bonds

Shorter-duration bonds or floating-rate bond funds offer more protection in a rising rate environment. These bonds mature sooner or have rates that adjust periodically, making them less sensitive to rate hikes.

Look for Dividend-Paying Stocks

Dividend-paying stocks—particularly those from companies with strong balance sheets—can offer a buffer during volatile periods. These companies often have pricing power, allowing them to maintain profitability and continue returning value to shareholders.

Reassess Real Estate Holdings

If your portfolio includes real estate investments, review the debt structures and geographic markets of your holdings. Consider diversifying into REITs with shorter lease durations or sectors like industrial or healthcare, which may show greater resilience.

Maintain Liquidity and Flexibility

Keeping a portion of your portfolio in liquid, low-risk investments allows you to take advantage of opportunities as they arise. Higher interest rates may bring volatility, but also the chance to buy quality assets at more attractive prices.

Turning a Challenge Into Opportunity

While rising interest rates can pose challenges, they also create new opportunities for informed investors. By reassessing risk exposure and considering alternative income strategies, it’s possible to protect your portfolio while positioning for growth.

Higher interest rates don’t have to derail your financial goals. With a proactive, diversified, and disciplined investment strategy, you can confidently navigate the shifting landscape.

Looking to adapt your investment strategy for a changing rate environment?

Contact RIA Advisors today to schedule a consultation. Our fiduciary team will help you build a portfolio designed to manage risk, preserve capital, and uncover opportunities—no matter what the market brings.

FAQs

How do rising interest rates affect bond investments?

Rising rates generally cause bond prices to fall, especially for long-duration bonds. Short-term or floating-rate bonds can help mitigate this risk.

Are stocks still a good investment during rising interest rates?

Yes, but certain sectors may perform better than others. Financials and dividend-paying stocks often fare well, while high-growth tech stocks may be more vulnerable.

Should I change my real estate investments when rates go up?

It’s worth reviewing your real estate holdings. Properties with shorter lease durations and REITs in resilient sectors may offer better stability.

What is the best fixed-income strategy for rising rates?

Short-duration bonds, bond ladders, and floating-rate bond funds can offer income with lower interest rate risk.

Can rising interest rates create investment opportunities?

Yes. While volatility may increase, rising rates can improve yields on new bonds and create value in previously overvalued sectors.

The post The Impact of Rising Interest Rates on Investments and How to Adapt appeared first on RIA.

It is jarring to read the recent letters Palestinian Christian leaders have sent directly to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) pleading with them to stand in solidarity with the suffering Church in Gaza and the West Bank. “Homes, churches, and hospitals have been destroyed,” they wrote in a letter just this month. In an earlier letter, dated March 25…

Source