lifesitenews--2020-03-04--Conservatives who hate Trump must realize that life, family, economy depends on his 2020 win

March 4 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – There are some American conservatives who despise Trump and would only begrudgingly vote for him as little better than having a Democrat in power .
Take Trump critic extraordinaire Rod Dreher , for instance .
He is terribly upset by what goes on at Trump rallies .
“ Trump is summoning demons , ” he solemnly intones in a piece published last year .
As a metaphor for evil , “ demons ” is about as dark as it gets .
It conjures up images of witches and warlocks , Black Masses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spin 360 degrees without somehow ripping themselves from their bodies .
What sort of evil ritual or incantation does Trump use at his rallies to summons demons , you ask .
Were chickens sacrificed and their bloody entrails flung out over the swaying , chanting masses ?
Did Trump perhaps lead the assembled thousands in reciting the Humanist Manifesto ?
No , Trump did none of these things .
Rather he took Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and the other members of “ The Squad ” to task for opposing his America First immigration policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the infamous Somali-American politico suspected of committing immigration fraud by marrying her brother .
Among other things .
At the sound of Omar ’ s name “ the mob ” —as Dreher referred to the assembled tens of thousands of ordinary Americans , -- started chanting “ Send her back !
Send her back !
” Trump ’ s rhetoric had , in Dreher ’ s view , cast an evil spell on the audience .
And he , for one , could not contain his outrage .
“ Where does [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to go ?
” Dreher asked rhetorically .
“ This is horrifying .
Republican members of Congress need to stand up right now and say that this is unacceptable behavior in a president , whipping up a mob like this.
” Doubling down , Dreher then went on to claim that all Trump rallies were coming to resemble the “ Two Minutes of Hate ” that George Orwell described in 1984 : Now the innocent reader might imagine that Dreher has witnessed this hate-filled “ ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness ” up close @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he had experienced the hate firsthand , and was profoundly shocked to see the bodies of those standing closest to him began to shake with uncontrolled fury as their eyes rolled up in their heads .
But if you thought that he was writing an eyewitness account , you would be wrong .
It seems that Dreher has never actually attended a Trump rally .
Rather , he has formed his low opinion of them from the safety of his living room couch .
Anyone who has actually been present at even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emotion displayed by the attendees is an overwhelming love for their country , their families and their fellow man—and for the man who is standing up for them and their values at great personal cost .
This is even more surprising because , in order to attend a rally , you have to stand in line for up to eight hours and then , after you file into the auditorium , you have to wait for another couple of hours for the Big Man himself to appear .
Long lines are generally the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are precious few smiles on the faces of those waiting in Venezuelan breadlines .
Yet smiles there are in abundance in the lines of those waiting to attend a Trump rally .
Everyone is friendly almost to a fault , eager to meet and greet those around them .
Perfect strangers walk up to you , compliment you on your MAGA gear , and start conversations about their favorite Trump policy .
I ’ ve never seen anything like it .
I ’ m not an introvert , but after a while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to bear .
If these people are possessed by anything , it is by love for their fellow man .
Someone might object that , even if the rallies begin well , they must end badly .
After all , once the orange man begins spewing his hate , the audience becomes a howling mob—or so some may imagine .
Do the attendees , whipped up to a frenzy by Trump ’ s rhetoric , attack the press gaggle filming from a cordoned off area in the back of the stadium ?
Do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brutally confront the counter-demonstrators who haunt Trump rallies , beating them to a bloody pulp ?
Do they get in their cars , pull out their concealed carries , and go hunt down illegal immigrants ?
No .
They do none of these things .
After listening to the president , these ordinary , decent Americans are in even better humor than when they arrived .
They shake hands with their new friends , pick up any trash they might have dropped , and file out of the stadium in good order .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a long day—but they go to bed happy .
They had come to see their champion and he had not disappointed them .
Now I get that some conservatives really , really , really don ’ t like President Trump .
And they clearly don ’ t like his rhetoric , his mannerisms , and his public-speaking style .
Dreher has even gone as far as comparing Trump to China ’ s Communist dictator who is responsible for the persecution of millions of Catholic , Christians , Uyghurs , Tibetans , political dissidents—not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ I put about as much stock in [ Trump ’ s ] word as I do Xi Jinping ’ s. ” John Zmirak , senior editor at The Stream , has roundly criticized Dreher for his “ sloppy reading ” of Trump and his supporters .
Well over half of Americans , including the vast majority of Christians , will find such sentiments repugnant .
They like President Trump ’ s plainspokenness , and they like even more what he has done for our country , and for its people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s why the energy in his rallies is electric , not evil .
Millions of Americans come to Trump ’ s rallies not so much to hear what he has to say—after all , he ’ s been saying the same things for four years now—but simply to hear him say it .
They know that—unlike nearly every other political figure they have known in their lifetime—he really means it .
Three years of promises kept are a testament to this .
They come to his rallies out of respect for the man @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and who , belying all the experts , has brought back industry and jobs to forgotten parts of the country .
They come to his rallies as well out of admiration for his courage and stamina .
Few men could have taken the beating that Trump has endured over the past four years from the self-interested power centers of this country—the media , Wall Street , and Washington—and still be standing .
Lastly , they come to his rallies because they know that the job of draining the swamp is far from finished @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to carry on bravely as he fights for their country , their future , and their children ’ s future .
They know that if he goes down , they all go down .
In short , they come to the rallies out of hope , not hate : hope that America ’ s best days are still ahead of it ; hope that their children will enjoy the same blessings of liberty that they have enjoyed ; hope that this good man who is our president will be able to accomplish even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during his first .
That ’ s why the energy in these rallies is electric , not evil .
All of these disenchanted conservatives would know if they had attended even one rally , as my family has .
As for the rest of us , we will continue to rally round the President , for we have a country , our families , and babies to save .
And , if you ’ re not going to help us , then get out of the way , and take your demons with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Bully of Asia : Why China ’ s Dream is the New Threat to World Order .
He is following the coronavirus epidemic on Twitter @ StevenWMosher

Disenchanted conservatives must realize that if Trump goes down, social conservative issues will go down with him.
March 4, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – There are some American conservatives who despise Trump and would only begrudgingly vote for him as little better than having a Democrat in power.
Take Trump critic extraordinaire Rod Dreher, for instance. He is terribly upset by what goes on at Trump rallies. “Trump is summoning demons,” he solemnly intones in a piece published last year.
As a metaphor for evil, “demons” is about as dark as it gets. It conjures up images of witches and warlocks, Black Masses and demonic possession, and heads that spin 360 degrees without somehow ripping themselves from their bodies.
What sort of evil ritual or incantation does Trump use at his rallies to summons demons, you ask. Were chickens sacrificed and their bloody entrails flung out over the swaying, chanting masses? Did Trump perhaps lead the assembled thousands in reciting the Humanist Manifesto?
No, Trump did none of these things. Rather he took Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and the other members of “The Squad” to task for opposing his America First immigration policies.
Omar, you will recall, is the infamous Somali-American politico suspected of committing immigration fraud by marrying her brother. Among other things.
At the sound of Omar’s name “the mob”—as Dreher referred to the assembled tens of thousands of ordinary Americans,–started chanting “Send her back! Send her back!”
Trump’s rhetoric had, in Dreher’s view, cast an evil spell on the audience. And he, for one, could not contain his outrage.
“Where does [Trump] think this is all going to go?” Dreher asked rhetorically. “This is horrifying. Republican members of Congress need to stand up right now and say that this is unacceptable behavior in a president, whipping up a mob like this.”
Doubling down, Dreher then went on to claim that all Trump rallies were coming to resemble the “Two Minutes of Hate” that George Orwell described in 1984:
The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretense was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledgehammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one’s will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic.
Now the innocent reader might imagine that Dreher has witnessed this hate-filled “ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness” up close and personal. He certainly writes as if he had experienced the hate firsthand, and was profoundly shocked to see the bodies of those standing closest to him began to shake with uncontrolled fury as their eyes rolled up in their heads.
But if you thought that he was writing an eyewitness account, you would be wrong. It seems that Dreher has never actually attended a Trump rally. Rather, he has formed his low opinion of them from the safety of his living room couch.
Anyone who has actually been present at even one Trump rally knows that the primary emotion displayed by the attendees is an overwhelming love for their country, their families and their fellow man—and for the man who is standing up for them and their values at great personal cost.
This is even more surprising because, in order to attend a rally, you have to stand in line for up to eight hours and then, after you file into the auditorium, you have to wait for another couple of hours for the Big Man himself to appear. Long lines are generally the enemy of amity. After all, there are precious few smiles on the faces of those waiting in Venezuelan breadlines.
Yet smiles there are in abundance in the lines of those waiting to attend a Trump rally. Everyone is friendly almost to a fault, eager to meet and greet those around them. Perfect strangers walk up to you, compliment you on your MAGA gear, and start conversations about their favorite Trump policy.
I’ve never seen anything like it. I’m not an introvert, but after a while, the bonhomie is almost too much to bear. If these people are possessed by anything, it is by love for their fellow man.
Someone might object that, even if the rallies begin well, they must end badly. After all, once the orange man begins spewing his hate, the audience becomes a howling mob—or so some may imagine.
Do the attendees, whipped up to a frenzy by Trump’s rhetoric, attack the press gaggle filming from a cordoned off area in the back of the stadium? Do they run out of the stadium to brutally confront the counter-demonstrators who haunt Trump rallies, beating them to a bloody pulp? Do they get in their cars, pull out their concealed carries, and go hunt down illegal immigrants?
No. They do none of these things.
After listening to the president, these ordinary, decent Americans are in even better humor than when they arrived. They shake hands with their new friends, pick up any trash they might have dropped, and file out of the stadium in good order. They drive straight home—it’s been a long day—but they go to bed happy.
They had come to see their champion and he had not disappointed them.
Now I get that some conservatives really, really, really don’t like President Trump. And they clearly don’t like his rhetoric, his mannerisms, and his public-speaking style.
Dreher has even gone as far as comparing Trump to China’s Communist dictator who is responsible for the persecution of millions of Catholic, Christians, Uyghurs, Tibetans, political dissidents—not to mention a coronavirus epidemic, stating: “I put about as much stock in [Trump’s] word as I do Xi Jinping’s.” John Zmirak, senior editor at The Stream, has roundly criticized Dreher for his “sloppy reading” of Trump and his supporters.
Well over half of Americans, including the vast majority of Christians, will find such sentiments repugnant. They like President Trump’s plainspokenness, and they like even more what he has done for our country, and for its people, these past four years. That’s why the energy in his rallies is electric, not evil.
Millions of Americans come to Trump’s rallies not so much to hear what he has to say—after all, he’s been saying the same things for four years now—but simply to hear him say it. They know that—unlike nearly every other political figure they have known in their lifetime—he really means it. Three years of promises kept are a testament to this.
They come to his rallies out of respect for the man who has stood up for Main Street and who, belying all the experts, has brought back industry and jobs to forgotten parts of the country.
They come to his rallies as well out of admiration for his courage and stamina. Few men could have taken the beating that Trump has endured over the past four years from the self-interested power centers of this country—the media, Wall Street, and Washington—and still be standing.
Lastly, they come to his rallies because they know that the job of draining the swamp is far from finished. They are there to encourage him to carry on bravely as he fights for their country, their future, and their children’s future. They know that if he goes down, they all go down.
In short, they come to the rallies out of hope, not hate: hope that America’s best days are still ahead of it; hope that their children will enjoy the same blessings of liberty that they have enjoyed; hope that this good man who is our president will be able to accomplish even more his second term than he was during his first. That’s why the energy in these rallies is electric, not evil.
All of these disenchanted conservatives would know if they had attended even one rally, as my family has.
As for the rest of us, we will continue to rally round the President, for we have a country, our families, and babies to save.
And, if you’re not going to help us, then get out of the way, and take your demons with you.
Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Bully of Asia: Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to World Order. He is following the coronavirus epidemic on Twitter @StevenWMosher
Follow Steven Steven Mosher is an internationally recognised authority on China and population issues as well as an acclaimed author and speaker and founder and head of the Population Research Institute. He was the first American social scientist to visit mainland China in 1979 where he witnessed women being forced to have abortion under the new “one-child-policy” which he then exposed to the world. Mr. Mosher was a pro-choice atheist at the time, but witnessing these traumatic abortions led him to reconsider his convictions and to eventually become a practicing, pro-life Roman Catholic. Mosher has appeared numerous times before the US Congress as an expert in world population, China and human Rights abuses. He has also made TV appearances on Good Morning America, 60 Minutes, The Today Show, 20/20, FOX and CNN news, as well as being a regular guest on talk radio shows across the nation. He is the author of the best-selling A Mother’s Ordeal: One woman’s Fight Against China’s One-Child-Policy. His latest book is Bully of Asia, exposing the threat of China to the entire world at this time. Articles by Steve have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Reader’s Digest, The New Republic, The Washington Post, National Review, Reason, The Asian Wall Street Journal, Freedom Review, Linacre Quarterly, Catholic World Report, Human Life Review, First Things, and numerous other publications. Steven Mosher lives in Virginia with his wife, Vera, and their nine children.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-04--Pro-abort billionaire Bloomberg drops out of presidential race, endorses Joe Biden

March 4 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Michael Bloomberg , the pro-abortion multi-billionaire late-entry into the Democratic primary field , has ended his presidential campaign and endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden , after failing to win any state primaries in last night ’ s “ Super Tuesday ” contests .
Bloomberg took to Twitter earlier today to announce his decision .
“ Three months ago , I entered the race to defeat Donald Trump .
Today , I 'm leaving for the same reason , ” he wrote .
“ Defeating Trump starts with uniting behind the candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It 's clear that is my friend and a great American , @ JoeBiden.
” Bloomberg is believed to have spent over $ 500 million on advertising since launching his campaign , but of the 14 states and territories which voted yesterday , his only victory came in the tiny American Samoa territory .
Bloomberg ’ s brief campaign has been dogged by accusations of sexism towards female employees while acting as CEO of his company Bloomberg L.P. , as well as frequent criticism of his controversial “ stop and frisk ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York .
During a recent primary debate aired live on CBS News , Massachusetts senator and presidential contender Elizabeth Warren accused the pro-abortion Bloomberg of having committed sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination against former employees .
Warren referenced a 1997 lawsuit brought by former employee Sekiko Sakai Garrison , in which Bloomberg was alleged to have told Garrison to “ Kill it ” when she informed him she was pregnant .
Bloomberg is the latest in a number of former contenders for the Democratic nomination to endorse Biden .
He joins Pete Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rourke in their recent decisions to throw their support behind the former Vice President .
Prior to entering the race , Bloomberg mocked Biden for going on what he called “ an apology tour ” in order to become President .
“ Joe Biden went out and apologized for being male , over 50 , white .
He apologized for the one piece of legislation which is actually a pretty good anti-crime bill , ” he said .
Biden , who says that he is a Catholic and that Pope Francis gives him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ becomes elected , he will direct the Justice Department to “ do everything in its power ” to block state laws that place any restriction on abortion , including parental notification requirements , ultrasound laws , and waiting periods .
His 2020 presidential platform includes taxpayer-funded abortion on demand and enshrining into law the many demands of the LGBT lobby .
Last month he said on social media that “ transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time.
” As vice president , the first “ wedding ” Biden officiated was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notably tried to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to participate in the provision of abortion-inducing drugs and contraception and threatened schools with the loss of federal funding if they wouldn ’ t let boys in girls ’ bathrooms and vice versa , among other things .
Biden ’ s campaign has been marked by his numerous gaffes while giving speeches .
Earlier this week , Biden appeared to become confused while quoting from the U.S .
Declaration of Independence ’ s statement .
“ We hold these truths to be self-evident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , by the , you know the , you know the thing , ” he said .
Last week he told supporters at a campaign event that he was “ a candidate for the United States Senate ” .
Biden told the crowd : “ ‘ Look me over , if you like what you see , help out .
If not , vote for the other Biden.
” And yesterday evening , while celebrating his successes in the Super Tuesday contests , he confused his wife with his sister while addressing supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Valerie , ” he said while taking his wife by the hand .
“ And I ’ m Jill ’ s husband , ” he said as he turned towards his sister .
“ Oh no , you switched on me .
This is my wife , this is my sister .
They switched on me !
” According to the RealClearPolitics polling average , Biden is now leading the way in the race for the Democrat nomination , with a 1.5 % lead over Bernie Sanders .
He currently has 453 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nomination on the first ballot at the Democratic National Convention , compared with Sanders on 382 delegates .

Bloomberg’s brief campaign has been dogged by accusations of sexism towards female employees.
March 4, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Michael Bloomberg, the pro-abortion multi-billionaire late-entry into the Democratic primary field, has ended his presidential campaign and endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden, after failing to win any state primaries in last night’s “Super Tuesday” contests.
Bloomberg took to Twitter earlier today to announce his decision. “Three months ago, I entered the race to defeat Donald Trump. Today, I'm leaving for the same reason,” he wrote. “Defeating Trump starts with uniting behind the candidate with the best shot to do it. It's clear that is my friend and a great American, @JoeBiden.”
Three months ago, I entered the race to defeat Donald Trump. Today, I'm leaving for the same reason. Defeating Trump starts with uniting behind the candidate with the best shot to do it. It's clear that is my friend and a great American, @JoeBiden. pic.twitter.com/cNJDIQHS75 — Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) March 4, 2020
Bloomberg is believed to have spent over $500 million on advertising since launching his campaign, but of the 14 states and territories which voted yesterday, his only victory came in the tiny American Samoa territory.
Bloomberg’s brief campaign has been dogged by accusations of sexism towards female employees while acting as CEO of his company Bloomberg L.P., as well as frequent criticism of his controversial “stop and frisk” crime prevention strategy while Mayor of New York.
During a recent primary debate aired live on CBS News, Massachusetts senator and presidential contender Elizabeth Warren accused the pro-abortion Bloomberg of having committed sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination against former employees. Warren referenced a 1997 lawsuit brought by former employee Sekiko Sakai Garrison, in which Bloomberg was alleged to have told Garrison to “Kill it” when she informed him she was pregnant.
Bloomberg is the latest in a number of former contenders for the Democratic nomination to endorse Biden. He joins Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Beto O’Rourke in their recent decisions to throw their support behind the former Vice President.
Prior to entering the race, Bloomberg mocked Biden for going on what he called “an apology tour” in order to become President.
“Joe Biden went out and apologized for being male, over 50, white. He apologized for the one piece of legislation which is actually a pretty good anti-crime bill,” he said.
Biden, who says that he is a Catholic and that Pope Francis gives him Communion, has said that if he becomes elected, he will direct the Justice Department to “do everything in its power” to block state laws that place any restriction on abortion, including parental notification requirements, ultrasound laws, and waiting periods.
His 2020 presidential platform includes taxpayer-funded abortion on demand and enshrining into law the many demands of the LGBT lobby.
Last month he said on social media that “transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time.”
As vice president, the first “wedding” Biden officiated was between two men.
The Obama-Biden administration notably tried to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to participate in the provision of abortion-inducing drugs and contraception and threatened schools with the loss of federal funding if they wouldn’t let boys in girls’ bathrooms and vice versa, among other things.
Biden’s campaign has been marked by his numerous gaffes while giving speeches. Earlier this week, Biden appeared to become confused while quoting from the U.S. Declaration of Independence’s statement. “We hold these truths to be self-evident: all men and women are created, by the, you know the, you know the thing,” he said.
Last week he told supporters at a campaign event that he was “a candidate for the United States Senate”. Biden told the crowd: “‘Look me over, if you like what you see, help out. If not, vote for the other Biden.”
And yesterday evening, while celebrating his successes in the Super Tuesday contests, he confused his wife with his sister while addressing supporters. “This is my little sister, Valerie,” he said while taking his wife by the hand. “And I’m Jill’s husband,” he said as he turned towards his sister. “Oh no, you switched on me. This is my wife, this is my sister. They switched on me!”
According to the RealClearPolitics polling average, Biden is now leading the way in the race for the Democrat nomination, with a 1.5% lead over Bernie Sanders. He currently has 453 of the required 1,991 delegates to secure the nomination on the first ballot at the Democratic National Convention, compared with Sanders on 382 delegates.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-04--Vibrant families can defeat atheism, and destroy the culture of death

March 4 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – We live in a largely godless society .
Compared to ages past , belief in a god is plummeting and moral degradation seems to reach increasingly new lows every day .
What caused this shift ?
Conventional teaching tells us that Western Civilization began to lose God after the World Wars .
Seeing the depravity of the wars and the great hatred and violence that occurred , many lost their faith in God .
Mary Eberstadt , author of How the West Lost God , argues it isn ’ t quite that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of The Van Maren Show , Eberstadt joins Jonathon Van Maren to discuss the decline in religious belief in Western Civilization and what we can learn from it .
Eberstadt highlights a significant flaw in the conventional idea that the wars started the decline toward a godless society , noting that now-secular societies experienced a religious boom after the war .
Additionally , secularism has seemed to creep into the societies of the vanquished , the victorious , and the neutral , without any discrimination .
Eberstadt instead points to the decline in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the west .
Without a strong , vibrant family unit , the faith wasn ’ t passed down from parents to children .
It wasn ’ t the secularization of society that led to the death of the family , but the death of the family that led to the secularization of society .
“ I think in disrupting the ordinary rhythms of family life , the wars also disrupted religious transmission , ” Eberstadt tells Van Maren .
The death of the family wasn ’ t spontaneous , though .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decline in the family .
The birth control pill and the sexual revolution exploded in the 1970s .
Most people began to expect that sexual relations outside of marriage were okay , even if they didn ’ t personally engage in that behavior .
This lackadaisical attitude – by parents , society , and even churches – is largely responsible for the boom of the sexual revolution .
Most people just didn ’ t understand the importance of this movement , or the broad-reaching impacts it would have .
With the sexual revolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of broken families and children born out of wedlock .
There was a decrease in marriages and an increase in divorce , resulting in the overall degradation of the family unit .
Eberstadt and Van Maren acknowledge that the birth of a child generally brings people back to the faith .
The transcendent nature of the birth of a child touches most people in a way few other life events can .
Even if they don ’ t see a need for religion in their own life , they want to give their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are another pivotal point in which many people turn back to religion .
When faced with the idea of death , people realize and seek a deeper meaning to life .
Eberstadt points out that not only do we have broken immediate families , but extended family bonds are often non-existent or strained .
It is less common for people to attend the funeral of an aunt or uncle , much less a great-aunt .
It is also quite difficult to maintain a consistent faith practice when children are with their father one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dad may bring them to one church , and mom to another .
Dad may teach one faith and set of values , mom another .
Some governments are seeing the broad-reaching societal impact of the decline of the family structure and trying to do something about it .
Hungary is leading the charge by offering policies and tax structures that incentivize and benefit families .
Hungary provides families with large tax breaks , stipends , student debt reduction , mortgage assistance , and much more based on the number of children they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t expect is that these pro-family policies led to a sharp decline in abortion rates there .
Many libertarians may disagree , but Eberstadt argues that encouraging intact families would be beneficial to governments .
An intact family means less of a burden on the welfare system , decreased crime , and improvements in society overall .
Eberstadt and Van Maren also discuss the abortion referendum in Northern Ireland , the pro-life movement , and what we can do to raise vibrant families .
Take a few moments from your day to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about how you can help to save the culture .
The Van Maren Show is hosted on numerous platforms , including Spotify , SoundCloud , YouTube , iTunes , and Google Play .
For a full listing of episodes , and to subscribe to various channels , visit our Acast webpage here .
To receive weekly emails when a new episode is uploaded , subscribe below :

Did the secularization of society lead to the death of the family, or did the death of the family lead to the secularization of society?
March 4, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – We live in a largely godless society. Compared to ages past, belief in a god is plummeting and moral degradation seems to reach increasingly new lows every day. What caused this shift?
Conventional teaching tells us that Western Civilization began to lose God after the World Wars. Seeing the depravity of the wars and the great hatred and violence that occurred, many lost their faith in God. Mary Eberstadt, author of How the West Lost God, argues it isn’t quite that simple.
In today’s episode of The Van Maren Show, Eberstadt joins Jonathon Van Maren to discuss the decline in religious belief in Western Civilization and what we can learn from it.
Eberstadt highlights a significant flaw in the conventional idea that the wars started the decline toward a godless society, noting that now-secular societies experienced a religious boom after the war. Additionally, secularism has seemed to creep into the societies of the vanquished, the victorious, and the neutral, without any discrimination.
Eberstadt instead points to the decline in vibrant families as the root of secularization in the west. Without a strong, vibrant family unit, the faith wasn’t passed down from parents to children.
Watch the full interview:
It wasn’t the secularization of society that led to the death of the family, but the death of the family that led to the secularization of society.
“I think in disrupting the ordinary rhythms of family life, the wars also disrupted religious transmission,” Eberstadt tells Van Maren.
The death of the family wasn’t spontaneous, though. The sexual revolution helped to spark the now-rapid decline in the family.
The birth control pill and the sexual revolution exploded in the 1970s. Most people began to expect that sexual relations outside of marriage were okay, even if they didn’t personally engage in that behavior. This lackadaisical attitude – by parents, society, and even churches – is largely responsible for the boom of the sexual revolution.
Most people just didn’t understand the importance of this movement, or the broad-reaching impacts it would have.
With the sexual revolution came a sharp increase in the number of broken families and children born out of wedlock. There was a decrease in marriages and an increase in divorce, resulting in the overall degradation of the family unit.
Eberstadt and Van Maren acknowledge that the birth of a child generally brings people back to the faith. The transcendent nature of the birth of a child touches most people in a way few other life events can. Even if they don’t see a need for religion in their own life, they want to give their children purpose and meaning.
Family funerals are another pivotal point in which many people turn back to religion. When faced with the idea of death, people realize and seek a deeper meaning to life.
Eberstadt points out that not only do we have broken immediate families, but extended family bonds are often non-existent or strained. It is less common for people to attend the funeral of an aunt or uncle, much less a great-aunt.
It is also quite difficult to maintain a consistent faith practice when children are with their father one weekend and their mother the next. Dad may bring them to one church, and mom to another. Dad may teach one faith and set of values, mom another.
Listen to the full interview
Some governments are seeing the broad-reaching societal impact of the decline of the family structure and trying to do something about it. Hungary is leading the charge by offering policies and tax structures that incentivize and benefit families. Hungary provides families with large tax breaks, stipends, student debt reduction, mortgage assistance, and much more based on the number of children they have.
What the Hungarian government didn’t expect is that these pro-family policies led to a sharp decline in abortion rates there.
Many libertarians may disagree, but Eberstadt argues that encouraging intact families would be beneficial to governments.
An intact family means less of a burden on the welfare system, decreased crime, and improvements in society overall.
Eberstadt and Van Maren also discuss the abortion referendum in Northern Ireland, the pro-life movement, and what we can do to raise vibrant families.
Take a few moments from your day to join Eberstadt and Van Maren and learn about how you can help to save the culture.
The Van Maren Show is hosted on numerous platforms, including Spotify, SoundCloud, YouTube, iTunes, and Google Play.
For a full listing of episodes, and to subscribe to various channels, visit our Acast webpage here.
To receive weekly emails when a new episode is uploaded, subscribe below:
Email Address *
First Name *
Last Name *


lifesitenews--2020-03-04--Priests, bishop reveal rashness in banning Communion on tongue in response to coronavirus

PRAYER PLEDGE : VP Pence is right .
We need prayer to fight coronavirus , not political antics !
Sign the petition here .
March 4 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — A number of Catholic priests , a bishop , and a lay group are challenging the argument that banning Holy Communion on the tongue in favor of receiving in the hand decreases the risk of spreading the coronavirus .
The priests and bishop have pointed out that not only that receiving in the hand constitutes a risk of losing precious fragments of the consecrated host , but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the risk of spreading diseases and germs .
Their warning comes as a number of dioceses around the world begin to implement bans on Communion on the tongue .
The Catholic Bishops ’ Conference of England and Wales has issued guidance for parishes that say that in the current situation , where there are very few cases of the coronavirus in the U.K. , “ anyone with cold or flu symptoms ” should be asked to receive the host on the hand only .
The bishops add , “ We should be doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The bishops go on to state that should the situation develop such that there are a “ number of cases in local communities or a case specifically linked to a parish community , ” then it is likely that parishes will need to suspend distribution of the Precious Blood from the chalice and for “ the host to be given on the hand only.
” A number of dioceses in France have already taken the step of banning Communion on the tongue , while still allowing Communion in the hand .
Bishop Joseph @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also issued a directive to churches in the country banning Communing on the tongue “ pending further directives.
” In response to the coronavirus , Catholic authorities in Jerusalem , Singapore , the Philippines , some U.S. dioceses , and other parts of the world have also issued either directives or guidelines in favor of giving Communion in the hand but not on the tongue .
Bishop Athanasius Schneider , however , has argued that “ Communion in the mouth is certainly less dangerous and more hygienic compared to Communion in the hand.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ view , the hand carries a huge amount of bacteria .
Many pathogens are transmitted through the hands .
Whether by shaking other people ’ s hands or frequently touching objects , such as door handles or handrails and grab bars in public transport , germs can quickly pass from hand to hand ; and with these unhygienic hands and fingers people then touch often their nose and mouth .
Also , germs can sometimes survive on the surface of the touched objects for days.According to a 2006 study , published in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influenza viruses and similar viruses can persist on inanimate surfaces , such as e.g .
door handles or handrails and handles in transport and public buildings for a few days , ” he said .
He described any ban on Communion in the mouth as “ unfounded compared to the great health risks of Communion in the hand in the time of a pandemic.
” Schneider said it ’ s as if some Church authorities are using the coronavirus as a “ pretext ” to trivialize reception of Communion .
“ It seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of cynical joy to spread more and more the process of trivialization and de-sacralization of the Most Holy and Divine Body of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrament , exposing the Body of the Lord himself to the real dangers of irreverence ( loss of fragments ) and sacrileges ( theft of consecrated hosts ) , ” he said .
Schneider said nobody can “ force ” a Catholic to receive the Body of Christ in a way that “ constitutes a risk of the loss of the fragments , and a decrease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of receiving Communion in the hand.
” He recommended making a Spiritual Communion rather than receiving Communion in a trivial manner .
“ In these cases , it is better to make a Spiritual Communion , which fills the soul with special graces .
In times of persecution , many Catholics were unable to receive Holy Communion in a sacramental way for long periods of time , but they made a Spiritual Communion with much spiritual benefit , ” he said .
U.S.-based priest Fr .
John Zuhlsdorf explained on his popular blog @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly three decades of distributing Communion in both ways , ” he doesn ’ t believe that Communion in the hand is safer than Communion on the tongue .
Fr .
Zuhlsdorf states : “ When distributing Communion directly on the tongue , I rarely , rarely , have any contact with the tongue .
When distributing on the hand , there is often , quite often , contact with the communicant ’ s fingers or palms.
” “ I don ’ t buy for a moment that pushing for Communion on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease .
I think that proper Communion on the tongue is safer , ” he said .
The priest stated that a bishop “ can not require Communion in the hand at the Traditional Latin Mass.
” “ The legislation of Summorum Pontificum is for the universal Latin Church and bishops can not override it .
The Instruction Universae Ecclesiae 28 says that Summorum Pontificum derogates from all liturgical law after 1962 that doesn ’ t agree with the laws of 1962.
” He said that if the coronavirus situation gets worse , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great risk of contagion when out and around , A ) you don ’ t have an obligation to fulfill and B ) you don ’ t have to go to Communion to fulfill your obligation .
You can make a spiritual Communion , since you are in the state of grace .
Father could , in fact , opt not to distribute Communion.
” A number of other priests who frequently distribute Communion both in the hand and on the tongue have echoed Fr .
Zuhlsdorf ’ s observations .
Fr .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have both taken to Twitter to state that they “ never ” make contact with members of the faithful when giving Communion on the tongue but often do when distributing Communion in the hand .
The U.K.-based Latin Mass Society ( LMS ) , an association of Catholic faithful dedicated to the promotion of the traditional Latin liturgy of the Catholic Church , has issued a statement explaining that in “ celebrations of the Extraordinary Form and other traditional Rites and Usages of the Latin Church , such as the Dominican Rite … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be distributed in the hand , according to the universal liturgical law applicable to them.
” The LMS notes that the guidelines from the bishops in England and Wales “ do not take the form of a decree with the force of canon law.
” Their statement also observes that “ the distribution of the Host in the hand does not appear to be less likely to spread infection than the distribution on the tongue.
” “ On the contrary , ” the statement continues , “ distribution on the hand has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infected surfaces , the palm of the left hand and the fingers of the right hand of the communicant , which is avoided in distribution by a priest directly onto the communicant ’ s tongue.
” The statement by the LMS makes it clear that should the spread of COVID-19 “ necessitate the suspension of the distribution of Holy Communion on the tongue , this would mean the suspension of the distribution of Holy Communion to the Faithful in these [ Extraordinary Form ] celebrations.
” Like Bishop Schneider , the LMS statement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laity can make a Spiritual Communion .
Bishop Schneider has said that any ban on Communion on the tongue , while allowing Communion in the hand , “ constitutes an abuse of authority ” and has pointed out that “ during the Church ’ s 2,000-year history there were no proven cases of contagion due to the reception of Holy Communion.
” .

As a number of dioceses around the world begin to implement bans on Communion on the tongue, several clergymen and one lay group counter that Communion in the hand is the less hygienic option.
PRAYER PLEDGE: VP Pence is right. We need prayer to fight coronavirus, not political antics! Sign the petition here.
March 4, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — A number of Catholic priests, a bishop, and a lay group are challenging the argument that banning Holy Communion on the tongue in favor of receiving in the hand decreases the risk of spreading the coronavirus.
The priests and bishop have pointed out that not only that receiving in the hand constitutes a risk of losing precious fragments of the consecrated host, but also that reception in the hand actually increases the risk of spreading diseases and germs.
Their warning comes as a number of dioceses around the world begin to implement bans on Communion on the tongue.
The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales has issued guidance for parishes that say that in the current situation, where there are very few cases of the coronavirus in the U.K., “anyone with cold or flu symptoms” should be asked to receive the host on the hand only. The bishops add, “We should be doing this anyway, every flu season.”
The bishops go on to state that should the situation develop such that there are a “number of cases in local communities or a case specifically linked to a parish community,” then it is likely that parishes will need to suspend distribution of the Precious Blood from the chalice and for “the host to be given on the hand only.”
A number of dioceses in France have already taken the step of banning Communion on the tongue, while still allowing Communion in the hand. Bishop Joseph Galea-Curmi, auxiliary of Malta, has also issued a directive to churches in the country banning Communing on the tongue “pending further directives.” In response to the coronavirus, Catholic authorities in Jerusalem, Singapore, the Philippines, some U.S. dioceses, and other parts of the world have also issued either directives or guidelines in favor of giving Communion in the hand but not on the tongue.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider, however, has argued that “Communion in the mouth is certainly less dangerous and more hygienic compared to Communion in the hand.”
“From a hygienic point of view, the hand carries a huge amount of bacteria. Many pathogens are transmitted through the hands. Whether by shaking other people’s hands or frequently touching objects, such as door handles or handrails and grab bars in public transport, germs can quickly pass from hand to hand; and with these unhygienic hands and fingers people then touch often their nose and mouth. Also, germs can sometimes survive on the surface of the touched objects for days.According to a 2006 study, published in the journal ‘BMC Infectious Diseases’, influenza viruses and similar viruses can persist on inanimate surfaces, such as e.g. door handles or handrails and handles in transport and public buildings for a few days,” he said.
He described any ban on Communion in the mouth as “unfounded compared to the great health risks of Communion in the hand in the time of a pandemic.”
Schneider said it’s as if some Church authorities are using the coronavirus as a “pretext” to trivialize reception of Communion.
“It seems also that some of them have a kind of cynical joy to spread more and more the process of trivialization and de-sacralization of the Most Holy and Divine Body of Christ in the Eucharistic sacrament, exposing the Body of the Lord himself to the real dangers of irreverence (loss of fragments) and sacrileges (theft of consecrated hosts),” he said.
Schneider said nobody can “force” a Catholic to receive the Body of Christ in a way that “constitutes a risk of the loss of the fragments, and a decrease in reverence, as is the way of receiving Communion in the hand.”
He recommended making a Spiritual Communion rather than receiving Communion in a trivial manner.
“In these cases, it is better to make a Spiritual Communion, which fills the soul with special graces. In times of persecution, many Catholics were unable to receive Holy Communion in a sacramental way for long periods of time, but they made a Spiritual Communion with much spiritual benefit,” he said.
The Catholic Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon, headed by Archbishop Alexander Sample, issued guidelines on March 2 affirming the right of Catholics to continue to receive Holy Communion on the tongue in response to local priests who were banning the practice due to the Coronavirus.
“After consulting with the Archbishop this office would like to clearly communicate that a parish cannot ban the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue, nor may an Ordinary or Extraordinary minister refuse a person requesting Holy Communion on the tongue. [Cf: Redemptionis Sacramentum 92. “Each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue at his choice.”],” the guidelines stated.
The Archdiocese said that it had consulted two physicians regarding the matter, one of whom was a specialist in immunology for the State of Oregon.
“They agreed that done properly the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand pose a more or less equal risk. The risk of touching the tongue and passing the saliva on to others is obviously a danger however the chance of touching someone’s hand is equally probable and one’s hands have a greater exposure to germs.”
In an article on the New Liturgical Movement website, Dr. Peter Kwasniewski highlighted a letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, dated 24 July 2009, the year of the “Swine Flu” pandemic.
The letter states that the faithful “always” have the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.
This Dicastery observes that its instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (25 March 2004) clearly stipulates that “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue” (n.92), nor is it licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful who are not impeded by law from receiving the Holy Eucharist (cf. n. 91).
Dr. Kwasnieski went on to cite a number of Church texts, all explaining that Catholic faithful should not be obliged to receive Communion on the hand, rather than the tongue.
U.S.-based priest Fr. John Zuhlsdorf explained on his popular blog that based on his experience of “nearly three decades of distributing Communion in both ways,” he doesn’t believe that Communion in the hand is safer than Communion on the tongue.
Fr. Zuhlsdorf states: “When distributing Communion directly on the tongue, I rarely, rarely, have any contact with the tongue. When distributing on the hand, there is often, quite often, contact with the communicant’s fingers or palms.”
“I don’t buy for a moment that pushing for Communion on the hand reduces the risk of spread of disease. I think that proper Communion on the tongue is safer,” he said.
The priest stated that a bishop “cannot require Communion in the hand at the Traditional Latin Mass.”
“The legislation of Summorum Pontificum is for the universal Latin Church and bishops cannot override it. The Instruction Universae Ecclesiae 28 says that Summorum Pontificum derogates from all liturgical law after 1962 that doesn’t agree with the laws of 1962.”
He said that if the coronavirus situation gets worse, so that there is “truly a great risk of contagion when out and around, A) you don’t have an obligation to fulfill and B) you don’t have to go to Communion to fulfill your obligation. You can make a spiritual Communion, since you are in the state of grace. Father could, in fact, opt not to distribute Communion.”
A number of other priests who frequently distribute Communion both in the hand and on the tongue have echoed Fr. Zuhlsdorf’s observations.
Fr. Ryan Hilderbrand and Fr. Ray Blake have both taken to Twitter to state that they “never” make contact with members of the faithful when giving Communion on the tongue but often do when distributing Communion in the hand.
When people receive on the tongue while kneeling, I never get my finger licked. When I think about how many times I brush my hand against someone else's while distributing in the hand, I remember that “reception on the tongue kneeling” is more sanitary.https://t.co/NjTYm0TRSq — Fr. Ryan Hilderbrand (@FrHilderbrand) March 3, 2020
I never have contact when giving Holy Communion on the tongue, whilst it is almost impossible to give it in the hand without contact. — fr. raymond blake (@raylblake) March 3, 2020
The U.K.-based Latin Mass Society (LMS), an association of Catholic faithful dedicated to the promotion of the traditional Latin liturgy of the Catholic Church, has issued a statement explaining that in “celebrations of the Extraordinary Form and other traditional Rites and Usages of the Latin Church, such as the Dominican Rite … Holy Communion (the Host) may not be distributed in the hand, according to the universal liturgical law applicable to them.”
The LMS notes that the guidelines from the bishops in England and Wales “do not take the form of a decree with the force of canon law.”
Their statement also observes that “the distribution of the Host in the hand does not appear to be less likely to spread infection than the distribution on the tongue.”
“On the contrary,” the statement continues, “distribution on the hand has the result that the Host touches possibly infected surfaces, the palm of the left hand and the fingers of the right hand of the communicant, which is avoided in distribution by a priest directly onto the communicant’s tongue.”
The statement by the LMS makes it clear that should the spread of COVID-19 “necessitate the suspension of the distribution of Holy Communion on the tongue, this would mean the suspension of the distribution of Holy Communion to the Faithful in these [Extraordinary Form] celebrations.”
Like Bishop Schneider, the LMS statement advises that in such circumstances, Catholic laity can make a Spiritual Communion.
Bishop Schneider has said that any ban on Communion on the tongue, while allowing Communion in the hand, “constitutes an abuse of authority” and has pointed out that “during the Church’s 2,000-year history there were no proven cases of contagion due to the reception of Holy Communion.”
March 5, 2020, update: This report has been updated with additional comments from Dr. Peter Kwasniewski and the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-04--New head of German bishops’ conference on track to ‘change’ Catholic sexual teaching

March 3 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) — Today , Bishop Georg Bätzing of the Diocese of Limburg was elected the new president of the German bishops ’ conference .
In his first interview after his election , he touched upon the question of the Church ’ s teaching on sexual intercourse before marriage and on homosexuality .
Asked whether he sees some leeway concerning these two topics , he says : “ there is leeway and there are openings in the doctrine.
” “ Something has to change ” also “ with regard to how we deal with homosexuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he adds .
“ As we have presented it at the synodal assembly , ” he further explains , “ we see already changes in John Paul II ’ s Theology of the Body .
The encyclical Amoris Laetitia then opened the door once more far and wide.
” It is now important , the bishop adds , that “ we can formulate this teaching in its substance in such a manner ” that it becomes “ a knowledge of orientation ” and that it is not being perceived as “ this fatal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to how we deal with homosexuals and their way of life , ” Bätzing concludes , “ something needs to change.
” As LifeSite ’ s Martin Bürger reported , Bätzing is the head of the discussion forum on sexuality of the German “ synodal path , ” whose preparatory document proposes to do away with the Church ’ s teaching on such important moral matters as contraception , homosexuality , cohabitation , “ self-sex , ” and gender theory .
On December 1 , 2019 , the German bishops started , together @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of German Catholics , a synodal process that aims at questioning the Church ’ s doctrine not only on sexual morality , but also on priestly celibacy and its acknowledgment of the impossibility of female ordinations .
Bätzing was elected after Cardinal Reinhard Marx announced in February of this year that he will not be available for a second term as the head of the German bishops .
Bätzing himself holds a whole row of controversial — and heterodox — positions .
• As one of the first German bishops , he encouraged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is working out concrete proposals for a liturgical blessing for homosexual and divorced and “ remarried ” couples .
• He defended Father Ansgar Wucherpfennig , the rector of the Jesuit Sankt Georgen Post-Graduate School of Philosophy and Theology in Frankfurt , whom the Vatican rebuked for having blessed homosexual couples and for questioning the Church ’ s stance on female ordinations .
Wucherpfennig has been appointed by Bätzing to work on a liturgical blessing for homosexuals .
• As the presiding bishop of an ecumenical working group of Protestant and Catholic theologians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for intercommunion , claiming that there is now “ agreement ” with regard to the “ theological meaning of the Eucharist/Last Supper ” and that , “ on that foundation , the diversity of liturgical traditions is being valued.
” This paper was publicly criticized by Cardinal Kurt Koch , who said the document is based on an “ assumption ” he can not share — “ namely : that the Catholic Eucharistic celebration and the Protestant Last Supper are identical.
” Bätzing called this paper “ an important step ” toward unity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ openness toward questioning the Church ’ s irreformable position on female ordination .
At the end of 2019 , he stated in a homily that he wishes for “ changes ” with regard to women in ministries of the Church , adding that “ as bishop , I have to take it seriously that the exclusion of women from the ordained offices is being perceived as fundamentally unjust and inappropriate.
” • Last , but not least , the Limburg bishop also proposes to abandon obligatory priestly celibacy , making it optional .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with this election , the German bishops decided to continue their “ path of destruction , ” in the warning words of the Regensburg bishop Rudolf Voderholzer .
German journalist Peter Winnemöller , in a statement sent to LifeSite , says he expects that `` the Synodal Path will be continued without change , '' even though the new head of the German bishops is “ much more reticent than Cardinal Marx.
” He continues , saying : “ It is to be seen whether he is capable of really filling this new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ setting a new tone or whether he will prove himself in the end as a figure which is being steered by his predecessor in the background .
Bätzing , according to his own words , is not at all connected with the Roman Curia and does not speak Italian .
Here , he will be in need of support of others , what certainly will not be an advantage for the German Bishops ' Conference.
” He concludes by saying that Cardinal Marx already has publicly , at the first press conference , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaks already for itself.
” As Marco Gallina , a journalist who writes for the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost , comments today on twitter on the election of Bishop Bätzing as the head of the German bishops : “ The DBK [ German bishops ’ conference ] has made it clear today that it does not wish to be anymore Roman Catholic.
” “ This is not even directly related to Georg Bätzing , ” Gallina continued .
“ In opposition to his predecessor Marx , who was presented by the German @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s hat , ’ is Bätzing , a careful and affable person .
But he has positioned himself in the past in favor of a ‘ voluntary ’ celibacy , of a ‘ common last supper ’ with Protestants — and of the synodal path .
He stands for the continuation of this project ; he is less blustering , perhaps , but not less resolute .
The German Bishops ’ Conference signalizes : the transformation from a Roman Catholic into a German Catholic Church is to be continued . ''
Mathias von @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sees in Bätzing a member of the “ reformist Catholic wing , ” adding that “ therefore , his election is not a breach with the tenure of Cardinal Reinhard Marx.
” This German journalist sees , however , that the new president avoids “ militant and provocative ” conduct and that he does not have “ neither much authority or prominence.
” For von Gersdorff , it seems that the German bishops elected more of a “ moderator , ” which he sees , in light of such earlier dominant figures as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who posed more as a “ regional pope ” — as a “ positive sign.
” But von Gersdorff also cautions us : “ It will be seen whether Cardinal Marx maintains his control from the background.
” Bätzing worked under Bishop Reinhard Marx , not yet an archbishop then , in Trier as the head of the priestly seminary .
The two men know each other well , and Marx showed himself visibly happy about the new president .
In today ’ s press conference , he explained that he had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his six-year term and that there will now come “ new tasks ” in his “ diocese and in Rome.
” There is still much speculation as to why Cardinal Marx actually stepped back from his leadership in Germany .
One of them is that he might soon be called to Rome — for example , into the office of Cardinal Marc Ouellet at the Congregation for Bishops or to the Secretariat for the Economy .
If this speculation turns out to be true , it will be understandable why the German bishops @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , since they still will have a high-profiled speaker for their intentions directly in Rome .
This would be needed , inasmuch as , as one well placed German source told LifeSite , Bätzing is a “ weak figure , ” with “ little strength to impose himself , ” as well as with no special connections whatsoever in Rome .
He does not even speak Italian .
In any event , the election of Bätzing , as one source in Germany told LifeSite , indicates that “ the majority of the German @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Church to the zeitgeist and a Protestantization of the Catholic Church.
” Feb. 4 , 2020 update : This report now includes a comment from German journalist Peter Winnemöller .

‘The German bishops' conference has made it clear today that it does not wish to be anymore Roman Catholic.’
PETITION: Join faithful German Catholics in resisting bishops’ plan to ‘Protestantize’ Church Sign the petition here.
March 3, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — Today, Bishop Georg Bätzing of the Diocese of Limburg was elected the new president of the German bishops’ conference. In his first interview after his election, he touched upon the question of the Church’s teaching on sexual intercourse before marriage and on homosexuality. Asked whether he sees some leeway concerning these two topics, he says: “there is leeway and there are openings in the doctrine.” “Something has to change” also “with regard to how we deal with homosexuals and their way of life,” he adds.
“As we have presented it at the synodal assembly,” he further explains, “we see already changes in John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. The encyclical Amoris Laetitia then opened the door once more far and wide.”
It is now important, the bishop adds, that “we can formulate this teaching in its substance in such a manner” that it becomes “a knowledge of orientation” and that it is not being perceived as “this fatal morality of interdictions.”
“And as to how we deal with homosexuals and their way of life,” Bätzing concludes, “something needs to change.”
As LifeSite’s Martin Bürger reported, Bätzing is the head of the discussion forum on sexuality of the German “synodal path,” whose preparatory document proposes to do away with the Church’s teaching on such important moral matters as contraception, homosexuality, cohabitation, “self-sex,” and gender theory. On December 1, 2019, the German bishops started, together with the lay organization the Central Committee of German Catholics, a synodal process that aims at questioning the Church’s doctrine not only on sexual morality, but also on priestly celibacy and its acknowledgment of the impossibility of female ordinations.
Bätzing was elected after Cardinal Reinhard Marx announced in February of this year that he will not be available for a second term as the head of the German bishops. Bätzing himself holds a whole row of controversial — and heterodox — positions.
As one of the first German bishops, he encouraged a working group in his diocese that is working out concrete proposals for a liturgical blessing for homosexual and divorced and “remarried” couples.
He defended Father Ansgar Wucherpfennig, the rector of the Jesuit Sankt Georgen Post-Graduate School of Philosophy and Theology in Frankfurt, whom the Vatican rebuked for having blessed homosexual couples and for questioning the Church’s stance on female ordinations. Wucherpfennig has been appointed by Bätzing to work on a liturgical blessing for homosexuals.
As the presiding bishop of an ecumenical working group of Protestant and Catholic theologians, he supported its statement that calls for intercommunion, claiming that there is now “agreement” with regard to the “theological meaning of the Eucharist/Last Supper” and that, “on that foundation, the diversity of liturgical traditions is being valued.” This paper was publicly criticized by Cardinal Kurt Koch, who said the document is based on an “assumption” he cannot share — “namely: that the Catholic Eucharistic celebration and the Protestant Last Supper are identical.” Bätzing called this paper “an important step” toward unity among Christians.
Bätzing also shows openness toward questioning the Church’s irreformable position on female ordination. At the end of 2019, he stated in a homily that he wishes for “changes” with regard to women in ministries of the Church, adding that “as bishop, I have to take it seriously that the exclusion of women from the ordained offices is being perceived as fundamentally unjust and inappropriate.”
Last, but not least, the Limburg bishop also proposes to abandon obligatory priestly celibacy, making it optional.
These few aspects make it clear that with this election, the German bishops decided to continue their “path of destruction,” in the warning words of the Regensburg bishop Rudolf Voderholzer.
German journalist Peter Winnemöller, in a statement sent to LifeSite, says he expects that “the Synodal Path will be continued without change,” even though the new head of the German bishops is “much more reticent than Cardinal Marx.”
He continues, saying: “It is to be seen whether he is capable of really filling this new position as the president himself and of setting a new tone or whether he will prove himself in the end as a figure which is being steered by his predecessor in the background. Bätzing, according to his own words, is not at all connected with the Roman Curia and does not speak Italian. Here, he will be in need of support of others, what certainly will not be an advantage for the German Bishops' Conference.” He concludes by saying that Cardinal Marx already has publicly, at the first press conference, “offered his help. That alone speaks already for itself.”
As Marco Gallina, a journalist who writes for the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost, comments today on twitter on the election of Bishop Bätzing as the head of the German bishops: “The DBK [German bishops’ conference] has made it clear today that it does not wish to be anymore Roman Catholic.”
“This is not even directly related to Georg Bätzing,” Gallina continued in additional comments to LifeSiteNews. “In opposition to his predecessor Marx, who was presented by the German media as ‘Rambo with cardinal’s hat,’ is Bätzing, a careful and affable person. But he has positioned himself in the past in favor of a ‘voluntary’ celibacy, of a ‘common last supper’ with Protestants — and of the synodal path. He stands for the continuation of this project; he is less blustering, perhaps, but not less resolute. The German Bishops’ Conference signalizes: the transformation from a Roman Catholic into a German Catholic Church is to be continued.”
Mathias von Gersdorff, in comments to LifeSite, sees in Bätzing a member of the “reformist Catholic wing,” adding that “therefore, his election is not a breach with the tenure of Cardinal Reinhard Marx.” This German journalist sees, however, that the new president avoids “militant and provocative” conduct and that he does not have “neither much authority or prominence.” For von Gersdorff, it seems that the German bishops elected more of a “moderator,” which he sees, in light of such earlier dominant figures as Cardinal Marx and Cardinal Karl Lehmann — who posed more as a “regional pope” — as a “positive sign.”
But von Gersdorff also cautions us: “It will be seen whether Cardinal Marx maintains his control from the background.”
Bätzing worked under Bishop Reinhard Marx, not yet an archbishop then, in Trier as the head of the priestly seminary. The two men know each other well, and Marx showed himself visibly happy about the new president. In today’s press conference, he explained that he had to deal with much pressure and conflict during his six-year term and that there will now come “new tasks” in his “diocese and in Rome.”
There is still much speculation as to why Cardinal Marx actually stepped back from his leadership in Germany. One of them is that he might soon be called to Rome — for example, into the office of Cardinal Marc Ouellet at the Congregation for Bishops or to the Secretariat for the Economy. If this speculation turns out to be true, it will be understandable why the German bishops chose a moderate bishop as their leader, since they still will have a high-profiled speaker for their intentions directly in Rome. This would be needed, inasmuch as, as one well placed German source told LifeSite, Bätzing is a “weak figure,” with “little strength to impose himself,” as well as with no special connections whatsoever in Rome. He does not even speak Italian.
In any event, the election of Bätzing, as one source in Germany told LifeSite, indicates that “the majority of the German bishops wish for an adaptation of the Church to the zeitgeist and a Protestantization of the Catholic Church.”
Feb. 4, 2020 update: This report now includes a comment from German journalist Peter Winnemöller.
Follow Maike Dr. Maike Hickson was born and raised in Germany. She holds a PhD from the University of Hannover, Germany, after having written in Switzerland her doctoral dissertation on the history of Swiss intellectuals before and during World War II. She now lives in the U.S. and is married to Dr. Robert Hickson, and they have been blessed with two beautiful children. She is a happy housewife who likes to write articles when time permits. Dr. Hickson published in 2014 a Festschrift, a collection of some thirty essays written by thoughtful authors in honor of her husband upon his 70th birthday, which is entitled A Catholic Witness in Our Time. Hickson has closely followed the papacy of Pope Francis and the developments in the Catholic Church in Germany, and she has been writing articles on religion and politics for U.S. and European publications and websites such as LifeSiteNews, OnePeterFive, The Wanderer, Rorate Caeli, Catholicism.org, Catholic Family News, Christian Order, Notizie Pro-Vita, Corrispondenza Romana, Katholisches.info, Der Dreizehnte, Zeit-Fragen, and Westfalen-Blatt.
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-03--Supreme Court hears arguments in major abortion case that could overturn Roe

WASHINGTON , D.C. , March 4 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – The United States Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments Wednesday on a Louisiana law imposing medical standards on abortion facilities , a case that could have drastic ramifications for the states ’ ability to restrict or regulate abortion .
June Medical Services LLC v. Russo concerns Louisiana ’ s requirement that abortion centers make arrangements for admitting women to nearby hospitals in cases of life-threatening complications .
The abortion industry ’ s attorneys argue the law is no different from the Texas law the Supreme Court struck down @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Health v. Hellerstedt ; pro-lifers argue that not only was Hellerstedt wrongly decided but that the Louisiana law is different from the Texas one .
Pro-life and pro-abortion activists rallied outside the court this morning as arguments commenced .
“ Allowing the abortion industry to police itself is like trusting the tobacco industry to stop lung cancer , ” Kristan Hawkins , President of Students for Life of America , told the pro-lifers gathered .
“ They both sell a deadly product that causes harm and have to be held accountable.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Fifth Circuit ( which upheld the law ) noted that while the laws may be similar , the Louisiana measure ’ s impact would be different as most Louisiana hospitals didn ’ t have the Texas requirement that doctors must see a minimum number of patients per year to qualify for admitting privileges .
In February , Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted ( in a dissent to a ruling granting a stay of the law ) that Act 620 had a 45-day transition period during which “ both the doctors and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ expeditiously and in good faith to reach a definitive conclusion ” as to whether the physicians in question could have obtained admitting privileges under the rules .
The Trump administration and various pro-life organizations have filed numerous amicus briefs siding with Louisiana , making the case that the state law is a constitutional and proper answer to the very real problem of abortion facilities that can not be trusted to put women ’ s safety first .
“ Louisiana abortion providers have a record of non-compliance with basic safety regulations , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally-accepted medical standards that apply to similar surgical procedures in our State , ” Louisiana Attorneey General Jeff Landry said in a statement Tuesday .
“ Women seeking abortions deserve better than that ; they should have the same assurance of prompt and proper care in the event of complications.
” “ We are closely watching this case and consider it extremely relevant to the future of our nation , ” said Andrew Bath , general counsel and executive vice president of the Thomas More Society , which filed its own brief in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , supporters of extreme abortion policy have stripped away almost all protections for pregnant women and their preborn children .
Illinois has the most radical abortion laws in the United States , heinously permitting abortion up to and including the moment of birth.
” The case is likely to at the very least impact the Hellerstedt precedent , which has been used to invalidate a broad range of modest abortion regulations as “ undue burdens ” on women .
It remains to be seen whether the court takes the opportunity to make a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey , which force all 50 states to permit most abortions .
In January , more than 200 members of Congress signed a brief urging the court to use the case as an occasion to reconsider Roe .
“ In revisiting this issue , we hope to see the Court respect the right of state lawmakers to protect women and girls , ” commented Marjorie Dannenfelser , President of the Susan B. Anthony List .
“ Abortionists – not women – are fighting against these protections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not the health and safety of women.
” Roe is largely defended not on its legal merits ( numerous pro-abortion legal minds , including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself , have acknowledged the ruling ’ s flaws ) , but on its status as precedent , with the contemporary interpretation of the stare decisis doctrine holding that Roe ’ s lengthy history staying on the books grants it added weight .
Justice Clarence Thomas has forcefully rejected such arguments ; it remains to be seen how Chief Justice John Roberts or President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gorscuh and Brett Kavanaugh , will weigh Roe ’ s precedent versus its substance .
This morning abortion activists shouted and blasted music in an attempt to drown out the pro-life rally , including stories from Louisiana women who regret their abortions , multiple sources on the ground told LifeSiteNews .
“ In violently killing preborn children and harming the bodies of women , the abortion industry and its allies perpetuate a cycle of abuse that state governments fail to acknowledge , penalize , or curb , ” commented Lila Rose , President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortionists routinely thwart standards designed to mitigate the harm done to women during abortions.
” “ We in the pro-life movement are never surprised when we learn that those who violently destroy the bodies of children for profit are willing to harm women as collateral damage in that pursuit .
We are fighting for the dignity of every human being , including children killed in abortion and the women who undergo these abortions .
”

The case could make a broader determination on the underlying legitimacy of Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which force all 50 states to permit most abortions.
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 4, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The United States Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments Wednesday on a Louisiana law imposing medical standards on abortion facilities, a case that could have drastic ramifications for the states’ ability to restrict or regulate abortion.
June Medical Services LLC v. Russo concerns Louisiana’s requirement that abortion centers make arrangements for admitting women to nearby hospitals in cases of life-threatening complications. The abortion industry’s attorneys argue the law is no different from the Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in 2016’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt; pro-lifers argue that not only was Hellerstedt wrongly decided but that the Louisiana law is different from the Texas one.
Pro-life and pro-abortion activists rallied outside the court this morning as arguments commenced.
“Allowing the abortion industry to police itself is like trusting the tobacco industry to stop lung cancer,” Kristan Hawkins, President of Students for Life of America, told the pro-lifers gathered. “They both sell a deadly product that causes harm and have to be held accountable.”
Last September, Judge Jerry Smith of the Fifth Circuit (which upheld the law) noted that while the laws may be similar, the Louisiana measure’s impact would be different as most Louisiana hospitals didn’t have the Texas requirement that doctors must see a minimum number of patients per year to qualify for admitting privileges. In February, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted (in a dissent to a ruling granting a stay of the law) that Act 620 had a 45-day transition period during which “both the doctors and the relevant hospitals” could have acted “expeditiously and in good faith to reach a definitive conclusion” as to whether the physicians in question could have obtained admitting privileges under the rules.
The Trump administration and various pro-life organizations have filed numerous amicus briefs siding with Louisiana, making the case that the state law is a constitutional and proper answer to the very real problem of abortion facilities that cannot be trusted to put women’s safety first.
“Louisiana abortion providers have a record of non-compliance with basic safety regulations, and now they want a special exemption from generally-accepted medical standards that apply to similar surgical procedures in our State,” Louisiana Attorneey General Jeff Landry said in a statement Tuesday. “Women seeking abortions deserve better than that; they should have the same assurance of prompt and proper care in the event of complications.”
“The dilators had dried crusted blood down in the crevices of the numbers engraved on the side… The surgical tools were so rusted that if you rubbed your hand down it, it would leave a rusty, orange streak on your palm.”#ProtectWomen #ProtectLife https://t.co/3SWKelnZrc — FRC (@FRCdc) March 4, 2020
“We are closely watching this case and consider it extremely relevant to the future of our nation,” said Andrew Bath, general counsel and executive vice president of the Thomas More Society, which filed its own brief in the case. “Here in Illinois, supporters of extreme abortion policy have stripped away almost all protections for pregnant women and their preborn children. Illinois has the most radical abortion laws in the United States, heinously permitting abortion up to and including the moment of birth.”
The case is likely to at the very least impact the Hellerstedt precedent, which has been used to invalidate a broad range of modest abortion regulations as “undue burdens” on women. It remains to be seen whether the court takes the opportunity to make a broader determination on the underlying legitimacy of Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which force all 50 states to permit most abortions. In January, more than 200 members of Congress signed a brief urging the court to use the case as an occasion to reconsider Roe.
“In revisiting this issue, we hope to see the Court respect the right of state lawmakers to protect women and girls,” commented Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the Susan B. Anthony List. “Abortionists – not women – are fighting against these protections. They represent their own interest, not the health and safety of women.”
Roe is largely defended not on its legal merits (numerous pro-abortion legal minds, including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself, have acknowledged the ruling’s flaws), but on its status as precedent, with the contemporary interpretation of the stare decisis doctrine holding that Roe’s lengthy history staying on the books grants it added weight. Justice Clarence Thomas has forcefully rejected such arguments; it remains to be seen how Chief Justice John Roberts or President Trump’s two SCOTUS appointees, Neil Gorscuh and Brett Kavanaugh, will weigh Roe’s precedent versus its substance.
This morning abortion activists shouted and blasted music in an attempt to drown out the pro-life rally, including stories from Louisiana women who regret their abortions, multiple sources on the ground told LifeSiteNews.
“In violently killing preborn children and harming the bodies of women, the abortion industry and its allies perpetuate a cycle of abuse that state governments fail to acknowledge, penalize, or curb,” commented Lila Rose, President of Live Action. “Unsurprisingly, abortionists routinely thwart standards designed to mitigate the harm done to women during abortions.”
“We in the pro-life movement are never surprised when we learn that those who violently destroy the bodies of children for profit are willing to harm women as collateral damage in that pursuit. We are fighting for the dignity of every human being, including children killed in abortion and the women who undergo these abortions.”
Just got out of arguments in June Medical Services, the Supreme Court’s big abortion case. I think there is actually a chance Chief Justice Roberts will apply Whole Women’s Health and strike down Louisiana’s admitting privileges requirement. — Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) March 4, 2020
Share


lifesitenews--2020-03-05--Chuck Schumer tells Supreme Court they’ll ‘pay the price’ if they rule against abo

Chuck Schumer tells Supreme Court they’ll ‘pay the price’ if they rule against abortion

WASHINGTON , D.C. , March 4 , 2020 ( LifeSiteNews ) – Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , D-NY , told Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh “ you ’ ll pay the price ” and “ won ’ t know what hit you ” if they uphold a pro-life law the Supreme Court is currently considering , leading Chief Justice John Roberts to release a rare public statement of rebuke .
Schumer made those remarks today outside the Court at a pro-abortion rally .
“ I wan na tell you , Gorsuch , I wan na tell you , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and you will pay the price !
” he exclaimed .
“ You won ’ t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.
” This morning , Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside .
Senator Schumer referred to two Members of the Court by name and said he wanted to tell them that “ You have released the whirlwind , and you will pay the price .
You will not know what hit you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions.
” Justices know that criticism comes with the territory , but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate , they are dangerous .
All Members of the Court will continue to do their job , without fear or favor , from whatever quarter .
Sen. Josh Hawley , R-MO , announced he will introduce a motion tomorrow in the Senate to censure Schumer over the comments .
President Donald Trump and numerous other figures , both conservative and liberal , blasted Schumer .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the chief justice , who sided with the court ’ s left wing on same-sex “ marriage ” and has voted twice to uphold Obamacare , of “ follow [ ing ] the right wing ’ s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said.
” “ For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing ’ s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said , while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg last week , shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.
” “ Sen .
Schumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court , and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision , ” said Justin Goodman , Schumer ’ s spokesman .
Supreme Court justices are not elected and serve for life .
Following Schumer ’ s comments to the pro-abortion activists who were rallying opposite the pro-lifers gathered outside the court , an abortion activist acknowledged the senator from the microphone and then said , “ Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who have abortions !
Let ’ s hear it for our trans folks who have abortions !
” Also present at the pro-abortion rally were celebrities Busy Phillips and Elizabeth Banks and numerous other Democrat congressmen .

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 4, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, told Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh “you’ll pay the price” and “won’t know what hit you” if they uphold a pro-life law the Supreme Court is currently considering, leading Chief Justice John Roberts to release a rare public statement of rebuke.
Schumer made those remarks today outside the Court at a pro-abortion rally.
“I wanna tell you, Gorsuch, I wanna tell you, Kavanaugh: you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price!” he exclaimed. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer: “I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh — you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” pic.twitter.com/kWz0mfjvow — The Hill (@thehill) March 4, 2020
Roberts responded:
This morning, Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside. Senator Schumer referred to two Members of the Court by name and said he wanted to tell them that “You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-MO, announced he will introduce a motion tomorrow in the Senate to censure Schumer over the comments.
I would call on Schumer to apologize, but we all know he has no shame. So tomorrow I will introduce a motion to censure Schumer for his pathetic attempt at intimidation of #SupremeCourt — Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) March 5, 2020
President Donald Trump and numerous other figures, both conservative and liberal, blasted Schumer.
“He must pay a severe price for this!” Trump quipped.
There can be few things worse in a civilized, law abiding nation, than a United States Senator openly, and for all to see and hear, threatening the Supreme Court or its Justices. This is what Chuck Schumer just did. He must pay a severe price for this! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 5, 2020
A Schumer spokesman responded to Roberts by accusing the chief justice, who sided with the court’s left wing on same-sex “marriage” and has voted twice to uphold Obamacare, of “follow[ing] the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said.”
“For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Sen. Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.”
“Sen. Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court, and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision,” said Justin Goodman, Schumer’s spokesman.
Supreme Court justices are not elected and serve for life.
Less than one month after this feigned outrage, Senator Schumer *threatens* that Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch will “pay the price” if they rule to protect unborn children.@SenSchumer, do you even know right from wrong anymore? The only ones “paying the price” are the unborn. https://t.co/zWu9mW7RQs — Rep. Doug Collins (@RepDougCollins) March 5, 2020
If I made the same statements that Sen. Schumer made today, federal marshals would be AT MY DOOR TODAY! Threats and violence have no place in the abortion debate. #ProLife @SBAList @StudentsforLife @LiveAction @March_for_Life @AbbyJohnson #Schumer https://t.co/1ptxI8erjl — Rev. Patrick Mahoney (@revmahoney) March 5, 2020
Schumer planned this line, and he meant it. He wants Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to be scared for their lives. https://t.co/b6psYdN6k8 — Allie Beth Stuckey (@conservmillen) March 5, 2020
Watch the video, as he makes his threat, Schumer clearly points directly at the Supreme Court. Schumer’s office now claims it was about Senate Republicans paying the “political price” for their confirmation. So why point toward the Supreme Court?�� https://t.co/FUG7DaTWKi — Rep. Paul Gosar, DDS (@RepGosar) March 5, 2020
As a fun exercise, envision Trump making this kind of comment about Ginsberg and Kagan. Then envision the self-righteousness and condemnation by some in political media… https://t.co/NUx27gNeyX — Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) March 5, 2020
2. Schumer should be sanctioned by the Bar, admonished by the Senate, investigated by the Senate ethics committee, and even reviewed by the DOJ. No individual, let alone the Senate Democrat leader, who is also a lawyer, should escape accountability for his loathsome conduct. — Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) March 5, 2020
Following Schumer’s comments to the pro-abortion activists who were rallying opposite the pro-lifers gathered outside the court, an abortion activist acknowledged the senator from the microphone and then said, “Let’s hear it for all the people who have abortions! Let’s hear it for our trans folks who have abortions!”
“Let's hear it for all the people who have abortions.” Pro-Abortion campaigners:Yay!!! I don’t say this lightly…the Abortion movement is propelled by an evil force.
This is the only explanation for anyone to chant & cheer for the death of the innocent.pic.twitter.com/UFGn5bF2FK — Obianuju Ekeocha (@obianuju) March 4, 2020
Also present at the pro-abortion rally were celebrities Busy Phillips and Elizabeth Banks and numerous other Democrat congressmen.
Share