Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

I was pleased to attend the launch of the book: Unravelling MAiD in Canada in Toronto on April 15. 

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition shares the hopes of the editors of the book - that this book will change the Canadian debate.

Unravelling MAiD in Canada is a thorough 530 page book that features chapters by: Ramona Coelho, K. Sonu Gaind, Trudo Lemmens, Mary Shariff, Leonie Herx, Alexander Simpson, Roland Jones, Gabrielle Peters, Hon Graydon Nicholas, Isabel Grant, Derek Ross, Mark Sinyor, Ayal Schaffer, Catherine Ferrier.

EPC has copies of this important book available for purchase. Order the book from EPC for $40 (after tax) + shipping (Order Link).

• Dr. Ramona Coelho, family physician and Senior Fellow of domestic and health policy, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
• Dr. K. Sonu Gaind, Professor, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto and Chief of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook
• Dr. Trudo Lemmens, Professor and Scholl Chair in Health Law and Policy, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto

Unravelling MAiD in Canada has chapters that focus on: general medicine, psychiatry, palliative care, Canadian law, health policy, disability rights and ethics.

With the number of (MAiD) euthanasia deaths in Canada and how the law expanded in 2021 (Bill C-7), Unravelling MAiD in Canada is an important book for Canadians and other people in countries that are debating the legalization of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. 

EPC has copies of this important book available for purchase. Order the book from EPC for $40 (after tax) + shipping (Order Link).

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

When euthanasia was first legalized it was based on providing euthanasia for competent adults who were freely capable of consenting. 

People with dementia are not competent adults who are capable of consenting. 

If euthanasia for dementia is accepted, then euthanasia for people with cognitive disabilities will be next.

There is a kind of silence that unsettles—the awkward hush of a crowded room when the music stops. And then there is the silence I encountered at Clear Creek Abbey: a silence so full it seemed to hum with the voice of God. My four-day retreat there, nestled in the hills of eastern Oklahoma, was not a retreat in the modern sense—a break from stress or a spiritual spa treatment. It was an immersion…

Source

British, French and German diplomats have reportedly been looking for ways to help Kiev restore relations with the US, the outlet claimed

French diplomats reportedly helped Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky write a conciliatory letter to US President Donald Trump in a bid to help the two leaders mend ties, Politico reported on Wednesday, citing an anonymous official.

Relations between Trump and Zelensky soured following the Ukrainian leader’s visit to Washington in late February. During a meeting at the White House, which included US Vice President J.D. Vance, Zelensky pushed back against Trump’s attempts to get Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table.

In response, Trump and Vance accused Zelensky of being ungrateful for US support and “gambling with World War III” by refusing to engage in peace talks with Moscow. The meeting was cut short and Zelensky was told to leave and come back only when he is ready for peace. Trump also temporarily halted all US military assistance to Ukraine after the heated exchange, but later resumed support after Kiev agreed to a 30-day ceasefire proposal.

Despite resumed contacts, relations between Zelensky and Trump have remained strained, Politico noted. In the weeks after the row, diplomats in France, Germany and the UK “sweated over how to try and repair the badly damaged relationship between Trump and Zelensky,” the outlet claimed.

While British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was holding calls with both leaders and sent advisors to both Washington and Kiev, French diplomats were helping Zelensky write a letter seeking reconciliation with Trump, Politico wrote, citing a French official.

While the content of the letter has not been made public, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff has stated that it contained an apology from the Ukrainian leader for the Oval Office scandal. The US president also confirmed receiving an “important” letter from Zelensky in which the latter had expressed his readiness to “come to the negotiating table as soon as possible.” 

Russia and Ukraine subsequently agreed to a 30-day partial ceasefire under which the two sides were to refrain from targeting each other’s energy infrastructure. However, Moscow has since accused Kiev of breaching the truce on an almost daily basis.

Meanwhile, following a five-hour-long meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, Witkoff stated on Monday that the Ukraine peace process was on “the verge” of a breakthrough. He also acknowledged that the Russian leader is pursuing a permanent resolution of the conflict, a position that Moscow has consistently articulated from the beginning.

Happiness levels have remained “surprisingly resilient” in the face of external shocks, a poll has found

Almost 80% of Russians feel happy despite the external challenges, according to a nationwide poll released on Wednesday.

The survey by state pollster VCIOM suggests that the overall sense of wellbeing among the population remains robust, with only the proportion of individuals identifying as absolutely or moderately happy fluctuating from month to month.

In its latest poll, which surveyed some 1,600 Russians over the age of 18 last month, VCIOM asked the respondents: “There are good and bad things in life, but overall, would you say you are happy?”

The pollster found that 79% of Russians described themselves as “happy in one way or another,” with more than a third (36%) saying they were “absolutely happy.” 

“As recent years have shown, happiness levels in Russia have remained surprisingly resilient in the face of external shocks,” the pollster noted.

VCIOM cited the Covid-19 pandemic, which it claims did not lead to widespread despondency, as proof of “the psychological resilience of the population.”

According to the latest World Happiness Report, meanwhile, Russia ranked 66th among the 147 countries surveyed last year. Finland was reported as the happiest and Afghanistan the least happy.

READ MORE: Many Russians oppose women as bosses – survey

Among European nations, the unhappiest was Ukraine, which also ranked 111th globally.

The World Happiness Report is an annual publication that measures global contentment based on life evaluations, social support, freedom of choice, GDP per capita, and additional indicators of wellbeing. The data is drawn from the Gallup World Poll and various supplementary sources.

The US president’s first international trip this term will be to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE – three pillars of his foreign policy

US President Donald Trump is planning a visit to Saudi Arabia in May, his first international trip since the beginning of his second term as president.

Saudi Arabia has been considered a potential venue for talks between Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. Notably, delegations from both Russia and the US have already held meetings in Riyadh.

Despite these diplomatic contacts, the White House has so far refrained from officially disclosing the goals of Trump’s visit. According to Axios, the main objective of the trip is to strengthen partnerships with the countries of the Persian Gulf and to discuss ways to stabilize the situation in the Middle East.

It is worth noting that Saudi Arabia was also the destination of Trump’s first foreign visit during his initial term as president in 2017. At the time, the choice of Riyadh was seen as a symbolic gesture, underscoring the strategic importance of the region for Washington.

Sources cited by Axios indicate that the trip was originally scheduled for April 28 but was postponed to mid-May. It is reported that the Saudi side initially hoped to host the American leader after a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine had been established, which would have given the visit additional weight in the context of global peace efforts.

There is nothing surprising about the fact that Donald Trump’s first overseas visit in his second term will take place in the Middle East. Moreover, Saudi Arabia will only be the first stop on a tour – visits to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are also planned. These countries today form a kind of political and economic triangle of influence in the Persian Gulf region and have become key partners for Washington amid a shifting global geopolitical landscape.

Trump’s chosen route reflects not only the current diplomatic priorities of the US but also a deeper shift in the global positioning of American foreign policy. Unlike the EU – where the attitude toward Trump remains cautious, if not openly critical – the Gulf states are demonstrating a willingness for dialogue and even close cooperation. These countries and Trump share a pragmatic outlook: an interest in regional stability, economic growth, energy cooperation, and the containment of regional rivals such as Iran.

Today, the Gulf countries are no longer simply oil monarchies; they are fully-fledged players on the international stage. Saudi Arabia is advancing a large-scale modernization program known as Vision 2030, aiming to diversify its economy and strengthen its geopolitical agency. Qatar, despite its small size, has become an influential mediator in regional conflicts and plays an active role in humanitarian and diplomatic affairs. The UAE, for its part, positions itself as a hub for technological innovation and logistics, aspiring to become the “Singapore of the Middle East.” These nations have long transcended their regional importance and now actively shape agendas not only within the Middle East but on the global stage as well.

The contrast with the EU is stark. US relations with the bloc are currently experiencing a period of strain. Washington is frustrated with the lack of a unified foreign policy stance in Brussels, internal crises in key EU member states, and a limited willingness to engage in practical matters of international security. Still reeling from energy and migration crises, Europe faces challenges in internal cohesion and declining economic competitiveness. Against this backdrop, its significance in US strategic planning is gradually giving way to more dynamic and resource-rich partners.

Thus, Trump’s focus on the Middle East is not only a logical continuation of his course toward a pragmatic alliance with politically convenient and economically significant states but also a signal of a reassessment of traditional centers of power. While Western Europe today is becoming a zone of uncertainty, the Gulf countries are islands of stability, ambition, and opportunity – assets the Trump administration seeks to convert into geopolitical dividends.

One of the key factors defining the foreign policy priorities of Donald Trump’s second term is a pronounced economic pragmatism. Trump’s team is essentially an alliance of politicians and business figures, many of whom came to the White House from the corporate world, where efficiency and profit are the main benchmarks. That’s why the interest in the Gulf states is driven not only by geopolitical considerations but also by deep economic motivations.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates are not just security allies – they are among the wealthiest nations in the world, possessing vast sovereign wealth funds that diversify assets globally. For Washington, this presents an opportunity to attract significant investment into the US economy – from infrastructure and technology to real estate. Gulf-based funds are already actively involved in financing American companies, startups, and financial institutions, and Trump, with his background in real estate and finance, sees these nations as strategic investors with whom deep economic partnerships – not just political ones – must be built.

Moreover, energy will be a central focus of Trump’s visit and negotiations. Despite rising domestic oil and gas production, the US remains interested in keeping global energy prices relatively stable and, ideally, low. This is especially important amid efforts to combat inflation and promote economic growth domestically. The Gulf states – major producers of oil and gas – play a key role in setting global energy prices. Therefore, Washington is seeking to coordinate strategic approaches to energy market regulation with them.

Beyond direct control over oil supplies, these states hold significant influence within OPEC and have strengthened their positions in the global energy landscape through investments in refining, transport, and new technologies, including hydrogen and LNG (liquefied natural gas). The US interest goes beyond simply buying resources – integration of American energy and petrochemical companies into large-scale infrastructure and industrial investment projects in the region is also vital.

Strategically, closer economic ties with the Gulf allow the US not only to maintain favorable conditions for its own economy but also to compete with China, which in recent years has been actively expanding into the region through trade, investment, and technology agreements.

Donald Trump’s upcoming visit to the Middle East in May cannot be viewed solely through the lens of diplomatic protocol or the traditional strengthening of alliances – it is a trip rich with strategic, economic, and geopolitical substance. The chosen itinerary – including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates – reflects not only Washington’s regional interests but also the broader architecture of Trump’s foreign policy priorities, built around power, influence, and economic gain.

Against the backdrop of growing tensions between the US and Iran, Trump is seeking to solidify America’s position in the region through an even closer alliance with the leading Arab monarchies. In recent months, Iran’s rhetoric and actions have intensified, raising serious concerns in Washington. The possibility of open – albeit limited – conflict is being openly discussed both among experts and within the US establishment. In this context, the Gulf states – long-standing opponents of Iran – are Trump’s natural allies. Joint efforts to contain Tehran, coordination on defense policy, the development of joint military initiatives, and potential participation in a regional security framework will all be important topics of discussion in Riyadh, Doha, and Abu Dhabi.

However, Trump’s regional strategy goes far beyond merely containing Iran. One of the key objectives of his trip is to advance his plan for normalizing relations between Israel and the Arab world – a continuation of the so-called Abraham Accords initiated during his first term. Trump sees himself as the architect of a unique shift in Middle Eastern politics, in which countries historically hostile to Israel began moving toward rapprochement in exchange for security guarantees, investment, and US diplomatic mediation. Given the current escalation of the conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip, Trump is seeking the support of Arab leaders to formulate a new approach to the Palestinian issue.

Essentially, the aim is to create a new regional consensus: Washington is offering Gulf leaders not just participation in the peace process, but the opportunity to become full-fledged architects of it. Achieving this would require a delicate balance between Israel’s interests and the need to address the Palestinian position – a challenge by any measure. Nevertheless, Arab countries – particularly the UAE and Qatar – have sufficient political clout, financial resources, and channels of influence to play the role of mediators, provided their involvement aligns with their own strategic interests and international standing.

All of these diplomatic, strategic, and economic goals are interlinked. The Trump administration, heavily composed of business-minded figures, sees the strengthening of economic ties with the Gulf not only as a way to attract investment into the US but also as a tool for influencing the regional agenda. Mutual interest in stable energy markets, high-tech cooperation, and shared approaches to regional security creates a foundation for deep, long-term cooperation.

In this light, Trump is heading to the Middle East with a comprehensive agenda: countering Iran, promoting a new model of Middle East peace, forging economic partnerships, and reinforcing his own political standing both internationally and domestically. His bet on the Gulf leadership reflects a broader reassessment of US foreign policy priorities: as the EU today loses trust and strategic relevance, the countries of the Persian Gulf are not merely emerging as alternatives, but as a new center of gravity for American policy in the East.

On the economic front, the Trump administration expects tangible outcomes from the visit: the signing of new trade deals, expansion of American corporate presence in the region, and stimulation of investment flows into key sectors of the US economy – from energy to advanced technologies and the defense industry. For Trump, whose political instincts are deeply rooted in business, foreign policy is closely tied to commercial interests, and the Middle East, in this model, is viewed as a market of opportunity, a resource partner, and a source of financial liquidity.

Politically, the visit serves a dual purpose. First, it is meant to demonstrate to the international community that the US remains capable of setting the agenda in one of the world’s most volatile and strategically important regions. Second, it sends a message to the domestic electorate: Trump is positioning himself as a strong leader who knows how to negotiate, expand American influence abroad, and secure the country’s economic interests through a diplomacy of strength and strategic deals. Altogether, this trip is far more than a symbolic diplomatic gesture – it is a multilayered initiative aimed at reinforcing US influence in a new global order defined by calculation, pragmatism, and control over key resources.

The White House has insisted Beijing must make a deal and threatened it with tariffs of up to 245%

China has called on the US to “stop threatening and blackmailing,” if it wants to resolve the escalating trade dispute between the two countries through dialogue. Beijing has stressed that it will continue to protect its interests in the face of US pressure.

The two countries have implemented a series of reciprocal tariff hikes over the past two months, with the US imposing a cumulative rate of 145% last week. On Tuesday, the White House warned that Chinese imports to the US could face tariffs as high as 245%, and claimed the ball is in China’s court.

“If the United States really wants to solve the problem through dialogue and negotiation, it should give up the extreme pressure, stop threatening and blackmailing,” Foreign Ministry Spokesman Lin Jian told journalists on Wednesday.

The diplomat reiterated that the tariff war was initiated by the US and stated that China’s response was aimed at safeguarding its legitimate rights and interests.

Beijing’s retaliation has included a hike to 125% on all American imports, a suspension of global shipments of rare-earth metals and magnets used in tech and military industries. In addition, Beijing ordered Chinese airlines to stop accepting Boeing jets and parts, according to Bloomberg.

President Donald Trump previously suggested that the “proud” Chinese want to make a deal, they “just don't know how quite to go about it.”

READ MORE: US to tie tariff deals to China curbs – WSJ

The Chinese authorities have meanwhile insisted that “the door remains open” for negotiation with the US, but dialogue must be based on mutual respect. The Ministry of Commerce last week dismissed the multiple rounds of duties imposed by the US on China as “numbers game” with no practical meaning and vowed to “fight to the end.”

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

When comparing the Canadian data to Canada's euthanasia data, at that time, I stated:

More articles concerning loneliness:

• 41% of older Canadians experience loneliness (Link).
• Loneliness is an epidemic with profound risks to health and life (Link). 
• Loneliness as a root cause for symptom distress among older adults (Link). 
• A wish to die is most often linked to loneliness and depression (Link). 
• Study uncovers euthanasia deaths based on loneliness in the Netherlands (Link).
  

This article was published by National Review online on April 14, 2025

Peter Singer, the internationally influential emeritus bioethics professor from Princeton, is known as a moral philosopher — which in his case is an oxymoron. Not only has he repeatedly endorsed the moral propriety of infanticide, but he has also yawned at bestiality and suggested experimenting on cognitively disabled people rather than animals if they are not “persons,” among other ethically depraved opinions.

Singer and another philosophy professor — Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek — just took to the opinion pages of the New York Times to endorse geriatric suicide. It seems a noted 90-year-old psychologist named Daniel Kahneman committed assisted suicide last year at one of Switzerland’s death clinics. Kahneman wasn’t seriously ill or debilitated but feared the infirmities that he believed were coming, so off to Switzerland he flew. Singer and Lazari0-Radek heartily approve.

 Listening to the Gospel we heard--the heart of our Faith --

Makes me fall silent. Maybe you, too.

That’s why we do this every single year.

If you’ve come this far in Lent, 

it may be that you feel you missed the boat.

You can still make Holy Week your Lent.

If you ever said, I wish I knew my Faith better, 

may I suggest that taking time during Holy Week,

to come on Holy Thursday, Good Friday and the Easter Vigil?

These days will help you go deeper into our Faith,

because this week is the heart of our Faith.

If you wish you’d gone to confession—it’s not too late. 

There are confessions Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday.

To accommodate everyone, we added a Sunrise 7 am Mass 

here at Our Lady of Good Hope just for Easter. 

And, if Masses are crowded, let’s try to have good humor and patience.

We’ll have folks we don’t see very often;

Yes, your favorite seat may be filled.

Our generosity of spirit can only make it more likely 

we’ll see them again.

Also, as the Mother Church for our parish family,

Our Lady of Good Hope is the site of our shared Easter Vigil.

We have a large group of men, women and children 

Who will be baptized and confirmed 

and receive Jesus in the Eucharist the first time.

This is the week of salvation. His week; our week.

It’s about what we did to the Lord; even more, what he did for us.

This Gospel provides an opportunity to deal with a question 

that sometimes people ask about us Catholics: 

Why do we talk about death so much?

Why is an image of Jesus dying on the Cross so prominent?

Many say we should focus on the Resurrection.

Sure: but you can’t talk about resurrection without talking about death.

One answer might be: well, death is just part of life.

That’s true, but only to a point.

It ignores something else we Christians believe: 

that God, in the original plan, did not want us to die. 

Let me say that again:

God’s original plan did not include death!

The world we live in – which includes sin and death –

is not the world God wanted for us;

And it isn’t the new world he is preparing for us.

Sin means that our life is a shallow, shadow kind of life. 

Let’s remember that death came into the world 

because of human rebellion against God.

That rebellion, however, doesn’t mean living without God; 

it means replacing the God who actually made us,

with the god of my own will, my own desires, making myself god. 

And that means not a world centered on one God,

but a world of seven or eight billion gods – one for each of us;

and what do you think that world looks like?

That’s a world of greed, injustice, murder and indifference. 

And that kind of so-called “living” – Jesus came to tell us – 

is a shadow experience of life; a kind of “deathly” living.

Whereas Jesus came to give us true life; the fullness of life.

And to have that fullness of life, 

you and I must die to what this world thinks is life. 

This is where God’s mercy is at work.

As you and I get a little older, our eyes aren’t so good, 

our hearing fades, our body doesn’t do all it used to…

this experience has a way of humbling us, and teaching us: 

you really aren’t God, you know that? 

And if we listen, and accept the lesson, we grow wise. 

And we are reminded: this life isn’t my destination; 

I’m on the way to something bigger and better. 

It is in letting go of this world that we gain the world to come.

This might be a good exercise for each of us: 

to look ourselves in the mirror, and ask the question: 

“Who is God?” And then tell ourselves: “Not you.”

Dying to self is the very hardest thing we do: 

we fight it from the first word many of us learn – “No!” – 

to our last breath.

And yet: think of those whose sacrifices gave us our freedoms.

Think of those who, when disaster strikes, run to the fire.

Think of your own parents.

Only when we die to ourselves do we become life-givers.

At this Mass, we are joined by those preparing to be baptized in two weeks.

Baptism is dying with Jesus, so that we can live for him forever.

Dying to shadow-life; rising to eternal life.

They are here to pray, 

but also, to seek our prayers, for the grace of conversion.

God has called them; and their witness reminds us: 

he’s calling you and me too!

Next week is Palm Sunday and then Holy Week:

if the Cross is the most important thing that ever happened, 

then Holy Week recalls the most important week in history.

We’ll have all our normal activities this year!

Make the most of it.

If you need to go to confession, but have been procrastinating, 

there are plenty of opportunities over the next two weeks. 

Do I live for me, for here, for this? Or do I want to live forever?

The situation in the world today is so intricate as to require great tranquillity of spirit and clarity of mind of anyone who wishes to find his way. The pandemic, the Russian-Ukrainian war and the election of Donald Trump have upended a false international balance. The political and intellectual class that has governed the world […]

The post International crises: the Church is never neutral appeared first on Voice of the Family.

But what does Jesus do? What does He say at the sight of all the outrages which He received? He prays for them that maltreat Him: “Father,” He says, “forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Jesus also prayed from the Cross for us sinners. Let us then turn to the Eternal Father, […]

The post Words that Jesus spoke from the Cross appeared first on Voice of the Family.

On November 16, 1955, Pope Pius XII issued Maxima Redemptionis Nostrae Mysteria on the reform of Holy Week and the Triduum. Those attending the Holy Triduum according to the Pian reforms of 1955 experience an abridged liturgy. Having undertaken the music and liturgical planning for both, there is no doubt, at least in my opinion, that the structural reforms were unnecessary and represent a significant loss and disconnect. What was necessary, in my view, was a restoration of the hours so that the liturgical action coincided with that of the LORD's suffering and ancient practice and shedding the ridiculous practice of Holy Thursday in the morning and the Vigil eliminated on Holy Saturday to a morning service for the very reasons the Pope described in the above linked document. Further, the structure of society was changing, and the faithful could no longer attend these sacred services. They became the realm of clericalists.

The current Pope, Francis, granted permission for the pre-55 Holy Week to be used on an experimental basis for three years by the FSSP. The ICRSS has, for many years, conducted the services according to the older books. This experimental permission was not granted to diocesan priests. However, both of these used the prior liturgical books, but with the new hours as evidenced here:

The very idea that in 2025 a Holy Thursday Mass and procession is held after noon at 3 o'clock or Good Friday at 8 o'clock at night is a direct contradiction of Pope Pius XII and every pope that has come after. It is an insult to the liturgy and to the people who cannot attend these hours. It is completely in defiance of Pope Pius XII and the rubrical law for either the Missal of Pius XII, John XXIII or Paul VI. Interpreting liturgical rubrics of prostration meant for clerics to the people forcing people who may not be able to get down or get up to prostrate to kiss and venerate the cross, is an abomination to human dignity, weight, age, even back-braces don't matter. The blatant passing on the requirement to "name" the present Pope in the public prayers is completely and utterly reprehensible within the Roman Catholic liturgy, no matter what one may think of the actions of any current Pontiff and reveals a serious deficiency in thinking.

Sadly, clericalism and fetishism have both invaded the traditional movement.

Two momentous days have passed: On Monday there was the cleansing of the Temple and the laments over Jerusalem’s lack of faith; Tuesday featured exhaustive teachings by Jesus and interrogations by His opponents.

Today, Wednesday, it would seem that Jesus stays in Bethany. According to Matthew’s Gospel, the day begins with an ominous warning:

When Jesus had finished saying all these things, he said to his disciples, “As you know, the Passover is two days away—and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified” (Matthew 26:1-2).

The scene then shifts across the Kidron valley, where we “overhear” this conversation:

Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and they schemed to arrest Jesus secretly and kill him. “But not during the festival,” they said, “or there may be a riot among the people” (Matthew 26:3-5).

It is interesting that they say, “not during the festival,” because according to the Synoptic Gospels that is exactly when it ended up happening. This serves as a reminder that things unfold according to the Lord’s authority. Nothing is out of His control. No one takes the Jesus’ life; He lays it down freely. Even if one considers the Johannine tradition, which uses a different Jewish calendar to date the Passover (one day later), this all takes place right in the thick of the Passover. Why? Because the Lord is fulfilling Passover. The priests and elders can plan all they want, but God is in control.

The Lord Jesus and the Twelve likely spent a quiet sort of day and it is now later in the afternoon. Matthew’s Gospel places Jesus in Bethany, at the home of Simon the Leper (Matthew 26:6-7). According to Luke (7:36), Simon was a Pharisee. His leprosy was in remission and he had been readmitted to the community. Could he have been one of the lepers Jesus cured? We do not know. The story here is complex; there are significant differences among the various Gospel accounts. Matthew records it as follows:

A woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he was reclining at the table. When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.” Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. Truly I tell you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her” (Matthew 26:7-13).

The act of anointing Jesus may have happened more than once; in the four accounts of it there are differences in both the details and the timeframes.

Luke presents this story (or a similar one) much earlier in his Gospel (Chapter 7). In his account it is Jesus’ feet not His head that are anointed. Further, Luke portrays Simon in a bad light.

Mark and Matthew place the incident on Wednesday of Holy Week, but report that it is those at the dinner (likely the apostles) who take offense at the anointing.

John’s Gospel places this event six days before Passover, but at the home of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus. In John’s account it is Mary who anoints the Lord (His feet, not His head) and Judas alone who takes offense.

For our purposes on this Wednesday of Holy Week, it is enough to note that Jesus sets the meaning of this woman’s action as anointing His body for burial. Jesus is clearly moved by her act of devotion and insight.

Jesus does not slight the poor in His response, but He teaches that the worship of God and obedience to His truth are higher goods than even the care of the poor. Serving the poor is not to be set in opposition to serving God. They are related, but God always comes first. For example, one cannot skip sacred worship on Sunday simply to serve the poor (except in a grave and urgent situation); serving the poor is not a substitute for worship. The worship of God comes first and is meant to fuel our charitable and just works. Further, set in the light of the looming passion, the dying One takes precedence over the poor ones.

One of the Twelve, Judas, has become increasingly disaffected. He has not been featured prominently among the Twelve; mention of him in the Gospels is minimal. Now he emerges, as if from the shadows, to betray Jesus. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all seem to place Judas’ plans to betray Jesus as set into motion at some point on this day. The Gospel of Matthew recounts,

Then one of the Twelve—the one called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests and asked, “What are you willing to give me if I deliver him over to you?” So they counted out for him thirty pieces of silver. From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over (Matt 26:14-16).

Why did he do it? There were storm clouds gathering for Judas, by which he may have opened the door to Satan. Scripture reveals that he was a thief, stealing from the common money bag (Jn 12:6). Jesus also hints that Judas was grieved by the Bread of Life discourse, which led many to abandon Jesus when He insisted that they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. Jesus said, “Did I not choose you, the Twelve? And yet one of you is a devil.” He spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot … (Jn 6:70-71).

We can only guess at Judas’ motivations. The most likely explanation is that he was disillusion when Jesus did not measure up to the common Jewish conception of the Messiah as a revolutionary warrior who would overthrow Roman power and reestablish the Kingdom of David. Judas may have been a member of the Zealot Party or at least influenced by them in this regard. Zealots are seldom interested in hearing of their own need for personal healing and repentance, let alone the call to love their enemies. This is obviously only speculative; Judas’ motivations remain to a large degree shrouded in the mystery of iniquity.

Yes, Judas betrayed Jesus for money—a significant amount—but compared to his salvation and his soul, it was but “a mess of pottage for his birthright” (see Gen 25:34). What will it profit a man that he should gain the whole world and lose his soul? (Mk 8:36)

The widespread belief that Judas might be in Heaven may be just a tad optimistic. The Church does not declare that any particular person is in Hell, however Jesus said the following about Judas: The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born. (Matt 26:24). It is hard to imagine Jesus saying this of any human person who ultimately makes it to Heaven.

The more likely biblical judgment on Judas is that he died in sin, despairing of God’s mercy on His terms. One is free to hope for a different outcome for Judas, but while the story of Judas and his possible repentance does generate some sympathy in many people today, the judgment belongs to God.

It is the saddest story never told: The repentance of Judas and his restoration by Jesus. Think of all the churches that were never built: “The Church of St. Judas, Penitent.” Think of the feast day never celebrated: “The Repentance of Judas.”

Judas goes his way, freely. God did not force him to play this role. He only knew what Judas would do beforehand and based His plans on Judas’ free choice.

Thus ends this Wednesday of Holy Week. It was a calmer day, a day spent among friends, yet a day on which Satan entered one man, who set a betrayal in motion. The storm clouds gather.

The post What Was the Lord Doing on Wednesday of Holy Week? appeared first on Community in Mission.

State Farm Insurance Promotes Miscegenation

Another American company lost to DEI and destruction of ethnic white Americans as well as blacks.  Melding all into one disappears diversity.

The most profound and ominous aspect of the controversy surrounding the deportation of Kilmar Ábrego García to El Salvador is that the Trump administration has figured out a way to circumvent the right of habeas corpus, not just for foreigners but also for the American people.

Why is that important? Because without habeas corpus, a right that stretches all the way back to Magna Carta in 1215, there is no free society. As British and American legal scholars have maintained for centuries, habeas corpus is the linchpin of a free society.

For example, freedom of speech is a fundamental right that the federal government is prohibited from taking away. Let’s assume that one day, an American citizen castigates President Trump for policies he has adopted. A few days later in the middle of the night, Homeland Security agents bash down his door, take him into custody, and incarcerate him.

That’s where habeas corpus comes into play. The victim, through his lawyer, files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with a federal judge. The judge issues the writ, which a U.S. Marshal serves on the person who is holding the critic in jail. The writ commands the custodian to immediately produce the critic in court. At the habeas hearing, the judge orders the government to show just cause as to why it is holding the critic. When it fails to do so, the judge orders the immediate release of the critic. The critic walks out of the courtroom a free person.

Thus, it is the right of habeas corpus that enforces the right of freedom of speech and the exercise of other rights. Without habeas corpus, people’s rights become a dead letter. That’s how important habeas corpus is.

The Framers understood the critical importance of habeas corpus to a free society. That’s why they enshrined it in the Constitution.

The right of habeas corpus developed over centuries of resistance by the British people to the tyranny of their own government. For example, after Magna Carta, English common law courts developed and applied the writ against the king’s arbitrary imprisonment of English citizens. In 1679, Parliament adopted the Habeas Corpus Act, which clarified and codified much of what English courts were doing from the 13th century through the 17th century.

Needless to say, rulers who have dictatorial proclivities hate habeas corpus. They don’t want any judicial interference with their decisions to incarcerate people who question their decisions, who they sometimes refer to by the label “terrorist.”

In the midst of the Civil War, for example, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, which enabled military officials to arbitrarily arrest and incarcerate critics of Lincoln. When the Supreme Court declared Lincoln’s act unconstitutional, Lincoln simply ignored the ruling.

After the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon and the CIA established a torture and prison camp at their base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The reason they established it in Cuba was because they figured that it would be totally independent of U.S. judicial interference and the U.S. Constitution, including habeas corpus. The Supreme Court ultimately held otherwise, declaring that Gitmo remained within the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.

But the presumption of habeas corpus is that the federal courts have jurisdiction over the officials alleged to be unlawfully holding the person. That’s where the arrangement that Trump and El Salvador’s president Nayib Bukele have entered into comes into play. With this extremely clever — even ingenious — arrangement, Trump has figured out a way to circumvent the centuries-old right of habeas corpus.

Let’s assume that Trump initiates a real war with, say, Iran, much like President Bush initiated a war with Iraq. Trump declares a “national emergency.” Following the precedent set by President Wilson during World War II, Trump decrees that criticism of his war will not be countenanced. Anyone who violates his decree will be punished severely.

If a military commander starts taking people into custody, there is no problem, right? All that that the victims need to do is have their lawyer secure a writ of habeas corpus from a federal judge, right?

Not anymore. What would happen instead is that some well-armed military unit will bash down the door of the critic’s home in the middle of the night. They then take the critic into custody and quickly whisk him to a nearby airport, where a waiting military plane immediately flies him to El Salvador, where he is delivered into the clutches of Salvadoran officials who then incarcerate and torture him as a “terrorist.”

What then? Nothing. The accused “terrorist” remains in that Salvadoran prison being tortured and there is nothing anyone can do about it. U.S. officials, including the president, will say that they no longer have control over the critic. They will say that he is now under the sovereign control of a foreign nation. They will say that they have no power to issues orders to officials of another nation-state.

By the same token, the U.S. federal courts have no power over a foreign regime. The president of a foreign country can ignore rulings of U.S. courts to his heart’s content.

Once 25 or 50 American critics are whisked away in the dead of night and suddenly find themselves in El Salvador’s brutal prison the next day, I will guarantee you that silence will quickly spread across the land. Very few people will dare criticize the president or his war effort.

Whatever might be said of President Trump, he is clearly a very smart man. He has now displayed his brilliance by developing a practical way to circumvent a right that stretches back centuries — the right of habeas corpus. Time will tell whether it produces a subservient, silent, and even supportive populace, much like what has happened in other nations throughout history.

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

Extreme volatility in a highly leveraged financial system inevitably results in liquidity issues. Hence, recent instability is generating mounting signals that liquidity is becoming scarce. This is most evident in the sharp increase in risk-free Treasury yields over the last week. Before the yield surge, liquidity problem warnings appeared in lesser-followed places like Treasury basis trades and interest rate swap spreads.

As we have learned repeatedly, the Fed will take extensive emergency measures if it perceives liquidity problems. Even above their Congressional mandated objective of managing employment and prices, the Fed's top priority is preserving the banks. Accordingly, following markets that can provide early notification of liquidity problems will go a long way toward foreshadowing the Fed’s next action and ultimately effectively managing wealth during this volatile period.

We start with a quick synopsis of Treasury basis trades. From there, we present interest rate swaps and what negative spreads tell us.

Treasury Basis Trades

Futures contracts let traders buy or sell an asset at a specific price for a future settlement date. Conversely, traders can buy or sell an asset for same-day or next-day settlement in the more popular spot/cash markets. The difference, or basis, between spot and futures prices is a function of borrowing costs and coupons or dividends on the spot security (cheapest to deliver instrument). Any difference not attributable to those factors creates an arbitrage opportunity. The arbitrage is guaranteed to return to fair value by maturity, if not much sooner.

In a liquid environment, the ability to arbitrage non-fair value basis opportunities easily should result in the basis normalizing quickly. That is not occurring today. To appreciate the current circumstance, we share a simple example.

Assume the price of the cheapest-to-deliver spot bond trades one basis point (0.01%) below the futures price after adjusting for borrowing costs and coupons. A  hedge fund noticing the differential might buy the Treasury bond and sell futures. To make the small potential gain worthwhile, they use leverage. The leverage, which could be over 20x and possibly up to 50x, boosts potential profits but introduces risk.

Now, assume the basis, or difference between the bond and futures contract, moves to five basis points the next day. The lender of the leverage to our hedge fund, likely a large bank, would demand enough collateral to cover the current loss and protect its interest. The hedge fund can supply cash or collateral to the bank. If not, it must sell some or all of the trade.

Liquidity And The Basis

If the basis moves further against the hedge fund, the potential arbitrage profit becomes more enticing. Accordingly, other hedge funds will put the same trade on if liquidity is plentiful, pushing the basis back to normal. However, in periods of illiquidity, few traders are willing or able to put the arbitrage trade on. Thus, margin calls can widen the basis and, in a circular fashion, force more hedge funds out of the trade.

Basis Trade Systematic Risks

There are two predominant risks with the Treasury basis trade going awry. First, highly leveraged hedge funds are active basis traders. Some of the hedge funds involved in these trades are massive. For example, Citadel, believed to be a prominent basis trader, has approximately $65 billion of assets under management. Moreover, it's estimated that they have an implied leverage of about 9x on that amount. If they were to fail, it could pose significant damage to their investors, including many large pension and endowment funds and sovereign wealth funds.

The second risk is to the banks lending to the hedge funds. Given that the leverage can be 20x or more on basis trades, a 5% loss can result in a 100% loss on the trade. Thus, banks exposed to hedge funds are indirectly on the hook. Furthermore, if a hedge fund were to default due to a basis trade, not only would the basis trade loss impact the bank, but also many other non-related trades that would likely get forcibly wound down in adverse market conditions. If the hedge fund were big enough, we could be talking about another Lehman moment.

Does this sound far-fetched? In 1998, this situation brought the giant hedge fund, Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), to its knees and required a Fed-arranged bailout to save many large banks from substantial losses.

As we wrote in From LTCM to 1966:

LTCM specialized in bond arbitrage. Such trading entails taking advantage of anomalies in the price spread between two securities, which should have predictable price differences. They would bet divergences from the norm would eventually converge, as was all but guaranteed in time.

LTCM was using 25x or more leverage when it failed in 1998. With that kind of leverage, a 4% loss on the trade would deplete the firm’s equity and force it to either raise equity or fail.

The world-renowned hedge fund fell victim to the surprising 1998 Russian default. As a result of the unexpected default, there was a tremendous flight to quality into U.S. Treasury bonds, of which LTCM was effectively short. Bond divergences expanded as markets were illiquid, growing the losses on their convergence bets.

Further in the article:

Per Wikipedia: Long-Term Capital Management did business with nearly every important person on Wall Street. Indeed, much of LTCM’s capital was composed of funds from the same financial professionals with whom it traded. As LTCM teetered, Wall Street feared that Long-Term’s failure could cause a chain reaction in numerous markets, causing catastrophic losses throughout the financial system.

Given the potential chain reaction to its counterparties, banks, and brokers, the Fed came to the rescue and organized a bailout of $3.63 billion. A much more significant financial crisis was avoided.

Interest Rate Swaps

Before discussing interest rate swap spreads, we provide context for this market, which forms the foundation for all financial markets.

The graph below, courtesy of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), shows that interest rate swaps are the predominant type of OTC derivative, with an approximate notional value of $575 trillion.

For a proper framework, the approximate total market cap of the U.S. stock market is $50 trillion, and the global stock market, including the U.S., is about double that. Furthermore, the global bond market is approximately $133 trillion. The graphics below, courtesy of the Visual Capitalist, provide more details on both markets.

The notional value of all outstanding interest rate swaps is about twice as large as the combined value of the global bond and stock markets!

Therefore, when the swap market talks, we listen!

What Are Interest Rate Swaps?

An interest rate swap is a derivative instrument, meaning its pricing is derived from another asset. Specifically, they are contracts in which two counterparties agree to swap streams of cash flows on a set schedule over a defined period.

The most common type of swap is where one party agrees to make periodic payments at a fixed interest rate and, in return, receives floating-rate payments. The other party receives the fixed payments and pays the floating rate. These swaps, often called plain vanilla or fixed-to-floating swaps, are the focus of this article.

Swap Market Are Grumbling

To appreciate the current warning eminating from the interest rate swap markets, we start with a quote from Bloomberg in its article, Tariffs Turbocharge Collapse of Favored Hedge-Fund Rates Bet:

But the unraveling picked up abruptly in recent days as the intensifying trade war darkened the outlook for Corporate America, leading banks to sell Treasury holdings to raise cash to meet clients’ liquidity needs, traders say. At the same time, the lenders have been adding swaps contracts to maintain exposure to interest rates in the event of a bond rally. The result is that swaps have massively outperformed Treasuries, pushing swap rates far below Treasury yields.

In simpler terms, banks are forced to sell Treasury securities to raise needed capital, i.e., increase their liquidity. Doing so creates a duration mismatch between their assets and liabilities. Therefore, to manage interest rate risks, they enter into interest rate swap agreements to maintain the duration of their assets.

As the demand to receive the fixed rate mounts, the swap rate (rate on the fixed-rate leg of the swap) trades lower. Today, it sits below Treasury rates, thus at a negative spread to Treasuries.

Given that Treasury securities are risk-free, such an event is odd. The graph below shows that swap spreads are now more negative than during the initial days of the COVID crisis and preceding it in 2019 when the Fed cut rates to address liquidity issues.

The negative spreads inform us that cash bonds are likely being sold to raise cash, and swap agreements are being entered to maintain their long-duration exposure. Banks and others are selling bonds at higher yields to receive lower-yielding swap payments. Again, that is not a worthwhile trade unless you need liquidity and or capital relief.

Given the complexity of interest rate swaps and their importance to the plumbing of the entire financial system, we will discuss them further in a coming article.

Summary

If you recall, the Fed reduced the monthly amount of QT at the last Fed meeting. Even then, before the tariff volatility started, they sensed that liquidity was potentially becoming dear. We have little doubt the Fed is paying close attention to the sudden surge in bond yields and the basis trades and interest rate swap spreads we discuss.

The Fed will react if needed. Since the problem is liquidity and is not necessarily economic, the Fed would likely introduce a program allowing traders to offset basis trades with the Fed. This is similar to other programs that have been used to provide liquidity. Given the uncertain inflation outlook, we doubt they would cut rates unless necessary. They could end QT, but starting QE is doubtful unless the situation worsens significantly.

The post Swaps And Basis Trades Warn Of Mounting Liquidity Problems appeared first on RIA.