Posts

Two Antichrists? How C.S. Lewis Helps Pat Robertson and Joel Richardson on the ‘Horns of a Beast Dilemma’

Which is the Antichrist — the Pope or the coming 12th Imam (Mahdi) of Islam? Pat Robertson seems to be questioning the historic Protestant view of the papacy as the Antichrist power, impressed with the work of Joel Richardson a “Mid East Beast.”

Before we throw the baby out with the bath water, let’s consider an update to C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters, which was about the devil’s strategies to deceive us. The devil has something for everyone and in the modern version, Christians can easily see how militant Islam is anti-Christ.

It’s too easy to forget Dave Hunt’s A Woman Rides the Beast. His title from Revelation 17 explained the harlot (not the bride of Christ) who is involved with kings and governments, a wealthy church decked with gold and precious stones, wearing scarlet, the color of cardinals, and sitting on seven hills (Rome). She is a persecuting church, “drunken with the blood of saints” and a mother church—mother of harlots who are unfaithful—they no longer protest what their founders protested.

This harlot is also “the Mother of Abominations.” Converted Jesuit priest, Alberto Rivera shows how Rome strategized to mentor young Muhammed by Catholic Khadija which explains the common thread of Mary and Fatima to both religions. (Mother of Abominations)

But while Islam made war on Jews and Evangelical Christians in the Holy Land as planned, they failed to give Jerusalem to the Pope, hence the Crusades to get it back from infidels and a bitter hatred of Islam for “Christians” and a perfect setup of them as “Antichrist.”

The only book that Christ recommended when asked about the end of the world shows that the U.S. will stomp Iran as the 2nd horn on a Muslim ram in Daniel 8:20 in a vision that’s “at the time of the end,” (Dan 8:17. After that, the pope will be able to move to Jerusalem (Dan 11:45) and govern the holy places and receive homage.

Then come the real Antichrist as the Pope introduces ‘Jesus’ to the world when Satan comes to impersonate Him. Hence there are two Antichrists. One adamantly opposed to Christianity, and the other, in place of the true Christ. The Vatican already worships Lucifer (the name of the fallen angel who became Satan and was thrown out of  heaven for his rebellion against God). Isaiah 14:12-14; Rev 12:7-9.

Satan so deceived the angels that if God had wiped out the devil without demon stration [sic] to show his principles, then all the other beings would have served God from fear rather than love, which is the basis of God’s government and the wise laws which He has made.

So our world became a battlefield to reveal who God and Satan are—and what their principles are. At the cross, love and hate were fully exposed, meaning that Satan would lose. But billions of people still have no clue in spite of the Bible being a best-seller. “So send I you,” says Christ to us in the end-time.

It will climax when Satan “Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” 2 Thess 2:4. This is what the pope has done for centuries, claiming the title of deity, “Lord God the Pope,” etc.

In the end-times, Satan will fill the bill with all power and signs and lying wonders, ” 2 Thessalonians 2:9. His claim to be Christ will deceive “nearly the very elect,” Matt 24:23,24.

But when we are not deceived and choose not to give him homage, it will be like the three Hebrews in Daniel 3. But as the “Son of God” was with them (Dan 3:25), He will come for us on the white horse to end Armageddon intended to annihilate God’s remnant.

Muhammad and Islam, the result of Vatican strategy?

Is the Vatican worshiping Lucifer and not the Son of God? Watch this video:

Pope Francis Invokes Lucifer At Easter Vigil Mass from Now The End Begins on Vimeo.

Pope improves Armageddon with Climate Change prophecy

Today the Vatican released a highly anticipated Papal encyclical containing a carefully worded prediction of the imminent destruction of Earth’s environment at the hands of wealthy countries and individuals. Titled “Laudato Si,” (“Be Praised”), the new encyclical leaves little doubt that its author, Pope Francis, is attempting to bridge the widening gap between the boring and preachy Epistle of Jude and the still popular and hardcore Book of Revelation, while also courting a younger, progressive generation of Mother Earth worshippers by adding a cool new “Horseman of Global Warming” to the existing Doomsday scenario, bringing the total number of Horsemen of the Apocalypse to five.

Prior to the release, a senior Vatican official explained the purpose of the encyclical as a good faith effort by the Pope to demonize unbridled capitalism as the sole threat to our common planet, thus endearing himself and the Church he shepherds to the largely untapped progressive community. “If this encyclical receives the popular support it deserves, it may well find its way into the Canon of Scripture, and possibly into movie theaters worldwide,” the source told the press on condition of anonymity, explaining that “stealing the Holy Father’s thunder” is an excommunicable offense.

“It may seem odd to suggest that St. John, author of the Book of Revelation, shared a common failing with the early prophets of Climate Change, but it’s true. In his eagerness to steer readers to God, John wrote as though it was essential that people immediately embrace holy living so as to avoid the fast-approaching horrors of Armageddon. Likewise, until recently, the harbingers of carbon-based annihilation demanded drastic lifestyle changes among the world’s consumers to prevent climate cataclysm,” said the insider of an increasingly enlightened and once again relevant Catholic institution.

“Their mutual mistake was the specificity of predictions and deadlines for action, which have all passed without any noticeable impact. New York remains above water and natural disasters have not increased, while the seven seals remain unbroken and the stars are still attached to the firmament,” the Vatican source said.

And yet we shouldn’t lose hope: “The infallible Vicar of Christ won’t repeat those mistakes. His encyclical skillfully combines compelling, Revelationesque doomsday scenarios with a generous use of tempering vagaries such as ‘may’ and ‘potential.'”

Even though none of the earlier predictions have materialized, there is still reason for optimism, as Revelation and Climate Change Science both continue to be wildly popular among the respective groups of believers.

“The encyclical capitalizes on that popularity while serving as a long overdue segue between the present time, where nothing of note is happening, and the apocalyptic events which may still be decades away,” said the Vatican official, ending the anonymous statement with a prediction that the eventual Hollywood screenplay may potentially feature a snappier, dire-sounding title.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

Helping Pope Francis to Help the Poor

With probably trillions in gold, Pope Francis has a good idea about sharing the wealth. Would he be willing to set a good example and say, “Follow me”?

If you Google “gold to the Vatican,” the first page of 7,080,000 results includes numerous links to $170 million in gold from Nazi Germany taken from the teeth of Jewish people gassed to death.

There are also 55,000 results for “gold to the Vatican” in videos with some of the same points in the below YouTube video. On the 2nd page of “gold to the Vatican” is a link to an article re: the Philippines as the “wealthiest nation on earth” and an explanation of “why the Diaz Last Will allotted 15% or around 90,000 metric tons of gold to the Vatican.” This is just the tip of the iceberg.

International Monetary Fund Whisteblower Karen Hudes says some of our tax dollars go to the UK by treaty and then to the Vatican Bank, raising huge questions — How can this be (@7:30 minutes)?

New World gold acquisition may have started with Cortez and the conquest of the Aztecs. I have seen cathedrals in Latin America with much gold. And it confirms the Bible’s reference to a woman in Revelation 17 that some Protestants interpret as the Vatican. She’s described as involved with kings and politics, arrayed in purple and scarlet and decked with gold, precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, Rev 17:2,4. Sounds like wealth, and sitting on seven hills [Rome], Rev 17:9,

So why would Pope Francis ask the only historically Protestant nation to help when he’s had the resources of Inter-America and South America at his command for centuries?

How does Pope Francis explain their poverty when Catholicism has dominated them? In the early 1960’s I spent a summer in Colombia and Venezuela when a third of the people couldn’t read or write –a sharp contrast to men like Jefferson, Madison, Adams and Lincoln who had no benefit of our great public schools of today. Maybe they were (God forbid) homeschooled!

Shouldn’t we start asking questions before we jump into a socialist pot to share what we have with everyone else? Maybe the first question would be how much wealth does the Vatican have? Can we inspect it like we would like to inspect Iran’s nuclear developments?

Catholic means universal, and we have a congress that is catholic—not Roman Catholic, but (little c) catholic–universal that wants to go along to get along and so very few with the guts to stand for what’s right, even at the risk of personal loss.

And maybe that explains how the Supreme Court works with a majority of Catholic justices favoring Obamacare that will surely ruin America, if same sex marriage doesn’t do it first with their approval. Is Protestantism dead? If we don’t speak out now, we must forever hold our peace. Freedom of press is nearly gone, but 7,080,000 results for “gold to the Vatican” deserves a bigger picture of how we got here from the Catholic World–

“There is, ere long, to be a state religion in this country, and that state religion is to be the Roman Catholic.”

1st. The Roman Catholic is to wield his vote for the purpose of securing Catholic ascendancy in this country.

2nd. All legislation must be governed by the will of God, unerringly indicated by the pope.

3rd. EDUCATION must be controlled by Catholic Authorities, and under education the opinions of the individual and the utterances of the press are included, and many opinions are to be forbidden by the secular arm, under the authority of the Church, even to war and bloodshed.”

– Father Hecker, Catholic World, July 1870.

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Rich Is the Catholic Church?

Pope Francis is unduly pessimistic about the world – Catholic Herald

Pope Francis’ Encyclical Is About More Than Climate Change

North Korea’s Brutal Regime, Not the Weather, Primary Culprit for Nation’s Food Shortage

U.S. Taxpayers Footing Costs for Solar-Thermal Technology Failures

Head of new Earth Corps program hopes to emphasize Franciscan spirituality

Franciscan Earth Corps A Special Emphasis on Climate Justice

Ecology Theology

EDITORS NOTE: Dr. Richard Ruhling is a physician whose interest in retirement includes a concern for where we are going in America. He offers more information at his website: http://ChooseABetterDestiny.com.

Pope turns lobbyist?! Urges prayers for passage of UN climate treaty!

Pope Francis: ‘We believers cannot fail to ask God for a positive outcome to the present discussions, so that future generations will not have to suffer the effects of our ill-advised delays.’

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano comment: “No matter how nuanced and faithful to Catholic teachings this encyclical attempts to be, this passage where the Pope urges Catholics to ‘ask God for a positive outcome’ to the current UN global warming treaty process, will overpower every other message. The Pope is clearly endorsing a specific UN political climate treaty and essentially declaring he is on a mission from God to support a UN climate treaty. He even conjures up the comical concept of climate ‘tipping points’.”

Full text of  “LAUDATO SI’, mi’ Signore” – “Praise be to you, my Lord”.

Full Text of Paragraph 169 reprinted below:

169. “As far as the protection of biodiversity and issues related to desertification are concerned, progress has been far less significant. With regard to climate change, the advances have been regrettably few. Reducing greenhouse gases requires honesty, courage and responsibility, above all on the part of those countries which are more powerful and pollute the most. The Conference of the United Nations on Sustainable Development, “Rio+20” (Rio de Janeiro 2012), issued a wide-ranging but ineffectual outcome document. International negotiations cannot make significant progress due to positions taken by countries which place their national interests above the global common good. Those who will have to suffer the consequences of what we are trying to hide will not forget this failure of conscience and responsibility. Even as this Encyclical was being prepared, the debate was intensifying. We believers cannot fail to ask God for a positive outcome to the present discussions, so that future generations will not have to suffer the effects of our ill-advised delays.”

End excerpt.

Related Links:

Watch Now: Morano on Fox: ‘The Pope sounds a lot like Al Gore’ – There is an ‘unholy alliance’ between Vatican & UN

Marc Morano on Fox – Varney & Co. w/ Stuart Varney – June 17, 2015 – Watch here:

Morano: ‘The pope appears to be jumping on the bandwagon just as the evidence to weaken on man-made global warming…On all of these metrics, the case is weakening… It’s one thing for the Pope to have a scientific view that people can disagree on, but it’s completely another thing to time an encyclical and tie it in with a UN global warming treaty. The confusion is going to be Catholic Americans will ask themselves: ‘Hey do i have to support a UN political treaty on global warming? If I don’t , am I not a good catholic?’ It’s sowing confusion. But on the other hand, only 2% of this encyclical appears to be on climate. There are lot of other issues in it. The people touting the Pope’s view on climate are ignoring all of the other issues, life issues, overpopulation, that the Pope is against. The media loves it because he sounds a lot like Al Gore in this encyclical.’

Climate Skeptics Respond to Papal EncyclicalClimate Depot’s Marc Morano: “The Vatican’s partnering with the United Nations climate agenda is nothing short of an unholy alliance. The papal encyclical, no matter how nuanced it may read, will simply be used as a tool to support UN global warming ‘solutions’ that are at odds with most Catholic teachings on issues such as abortion, contraception, overpopulation, and helping the poor nations develop. The Vatican appears to be taking an unprecedented step by seemingly endorsing a specific UN climate treaty.

“Despite the media’s portrayal, this is ultimately not a climate change encyclical, as only 2% of the encyclical deals with climate at all. It is about much more than that, and the irony is that the people who are lauding the pope’s position on climate disagree with just about everything else he stands for. Climate activists who take the time to read the entire encyclical will learn about Catholic teaching on a host of moral issues that they probably have never been willing to listen to before.

“The climate activists are no doubt getting a PR boost from the pope’s entry into the climate debate. But ultimately, the pope’s views on climate science will do little to alter the opinions of Catholics about global warming. As a Catholic, it is my hope that the pope does not take the next step and essentially lobby for a UN climate treaty.”

Senator Inhofe: Pope’s Words Will Be Used To Justify ‘Largest’ Tax Increase In History

Catholic Herald: ‘Pope Francis is unduly pessimistic about the world’

Pope Francis: Time for a “bold cultural revolution” to confront climate change and ‘compulsive consumerism’

U.S. bishops taking Pope’s climate message to Capitol Hill for briefings with lawmakers

Pope Francis: Climate Change and Abortion are ‘Interrelated’

UN Climate Chief: Pope’s encyclical may have ‘major impact’ on climate talks

Boston Globe: US must take the lead on Pope Francis’ call on climate change

Watch Now: Morano in lively TV EWTN climate debate with enviro lobbyist: ‘The points she just made are demonstrably not true’

Climate Depot’s Mission to Rome – Persuading the The Vatican on ‘Climate Change’

Watch Now: Marc Morano’s Presentation in Rome to Vatican – April 28, 2015 – Watch video here: – Marc Morano, executive editor and chief correspondent at ClimateDepot.com, gives a presentation at The Heartland Institute’s climate science and policy event outside the Vatican on April 28, 2015. – Morano’s Powerpoint is here.

VATICAN HEAVIES SILENCE ‘CLIMATE HERETICS’ AT UN PAPAL SUMMIT IN ROME

Climate Skeptics In Rome Warn Pope Francis of ‘Unholy Alliance’ With UN Climate Agenda

Flashback: Vatican Climate Advisor ‘proposed creation of a CO2 budget for every person on planet!’

Pew Poll: Less than half of US Catholics believe climate change is mostly man-made – The survey by the Pew Research Center found 71 percent of U.S. Catholics believed the planet was getting warmer, but less than half, or 47 percent, attributed global warming to human causes. About 48 percent viewed it as a very serious problem. The numbers are similar to the U.S. population overall – 68 percent believe warming is happening, 45 percent say it is caused by humans, and 46 percent see it as a very serious problem.

Climate conversion? Al Gore: ‘I could become a Catholic because of this Pope’

Climate conversion? Al Gore: ‘I could become a Catholic because of this Pope’ – Gore: ‘Well I’ve said publicly in the last year, I was raised in the Southern Baptist tradition, I could become a Catholic because of this Pope. He is that inspiring to me.’

Against Eco-pessimism: Half a Century of False Bad News by Matt Ridley

Pope Francis’s new encyclical on the environment (Laudato Sii) warns of the coming environmental catastrophe (“unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us”).  It’s the latest entry in a long literary tradition of environmental doomsday warnings.

In contrast, Matt Ridley, bestselling author of GenomeThe Agile Gene, and The Rational Optimist, who also received the 2012 Julian Simon Memorial Award from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, says this outlook has proven wrong time again. This is the full text of his acceptance speech. Video is embedded below.

It is now 32 years, nearly a third of a century, since Julian Simon nailed his theses to the door of the eco-pessimist church by publishing his famous article in Science magazine: “Resources, Population, Environment: An Oversupply of False Bad News.”

It is also 40 years since The Limits to Growth and 50 years since Silent Spring, plenty long enough to reflect on whether the world has conformed to Malthusian pessimism or Simonian optimism.

Before I go on, I want to remind you just how viciously Simon was attacked for saying that he thought the bad news was being exaggerated and the good news downplayed.

Verbally at least Simon’s treatment was every bit as rough as Martin Luther’s. Simon was called an imbecile, a moron, silly, ignorant, a flat-earther, a member of the far right, a Marxist.

“Could the editors have found someone to review Simon’s manuscript who had to take off his shoes to count to 20?” said Paul Ehrlich.

Erhlich together with John Holdren then launched a blistering critique, accusing Simon of lying about electricity prices having fallen. It turned out they were basing their criticism on a typo in a table, as Simon discovered by calling the table’s author. To which Ehrlich replied: “what scientist would phone the author of a standard source to make sure there were no typos in a series of numbers?”

Answer: one who likes to get his facts right.

Yet for all the invective, his critics have never laid a glove on Julian Simon then or later. I cannot think of a single significant fact, data point or even prediction where he was eventually proved badly wrong. There may be a few trivia that went wrong, but the big things are all right. Read that 1980 article again today and you will see what I mean.

I want to draw a few lessons from Julian Simon’s battle with the Malthusian minotaur, and from my own foolhardy decision to follow in his footsteps – and those of Bjorn Lomborg, Ron Bailey, Indur Goklany, Ian Murray, Myron Ebell and others – into the labyrinth a couple of decades later.

Consider the words of the publisher’s summary of The Limits to Growth: “Will this be the world that your grandchildren will thank you for? A world where industrial production has sunk to zero. Where population has suffered a catastrophic decline. Where the air, sea, and land are polluted beyond redemption. Where civilization is a distant memory. This is the world that the computer forecasts.”

Again and again Simon was right and his critics were wrong.

Would it not be nice if just one of those people who called him names piped up and admitted it? We optimists have won every intellectual argument and yet we have made no difference at all. My daughter’s textbooks trot out the same old Malthusian dirge as mine did.

What makes it so hard to get the message across?

I think it boils down to five adjectives: ahistorical, finite, static, vested and complacent. The eco-pessimist view ignores history, misunderstands finiteness, thinks statically, has a vested interest in doom and is complacent about innovation.

People have very short memories. They are not just ignoring, but unaware of, the poor track record of eco-pessimists. For me, the fact that each of the scares I mentioned above was taken very seriously at the time, attracting the solemn endorsement of the great and the good, should prompt real skepticism about global warming claims today.

That’s what motivated me to start asking to see the actual evidence about climate change. When I did so I could not find one piece of data – as opposed to a model – that shows either unprecedented change or change is that is anywhere close to causing real harm.

Yet when I made this point to a climate scientist recently, he promptly and cheerily said that “the fact that people have been wrong before does not make them wrong this time,” as if this somehow settled the matter for good.

Second, it is enormously hard for people to grasp Simon’s argument that “Incredible as it may seem at first, the term ‘finite’ is not only inappropriate but downright misleading in the context of natural resources.”

He went on: “Because we find new lodes, invent better production methods and discover new substitutes, the ultimate constraint upon our capacity to enjoy unlimited raw materials at acceptable prices is knowledge.” This is a profoundly counterintuitive point.

Yet was there ever a better demonstration of this truth than the shale gas revolution? Shale gas was always there; but what made it a resource, as opposed to not a resource, was knowledge – the practical know-how developed by George Mitchell in Texas. This has transformed the energy picture of the world.

Besides, as I have noted elsewhere, it’s the renewable – infinite – resources that have a habit of running out: whales, white pine forests, buffalo. It’s a startling fact, but no non-renewable resource has yet come close to exhaustion, whereas lots of renewable ones have.

And by the way, have you noticed something about fossil fuels – we are the only creatures that use them. What this means is that when you use oil, coal or gas, you are not competing with other species. When you use timber, or crops or tide, or hydro or even wind, you are.

There is absolutely no doubt that the world’s policy of encouraging the use of bio-energy, whether in the form of timber or ethanol, is bad for wildlife – it competes with wildlife for land, or wood or food.

Imagine a world in which we relied on crops and wood for all our energy and then along comes somebody and says here’s this stuff underground that we can use instead, so we don’t have to steal the biosphere’s lunch.

Imagine no more. That’s precisely what did happen in the industrial revolution.

Third, the Malthusian view is fundamentally static. Julian Simon’s view is fundamentally dynamic. Again and again when I argue with greens I find that they simply do not grasp the reflexive nature of the world, the way in which prices cause the substitution of resources or the dynamic properties of ecosystems – the word equilibrium has no place in ecology.

Take malaria. The eco-pessimists insisted until recently that malaria must get worse in a warming 21st century world. But, as Paul Reiter kept telling them to no avail, this is nonsense. Malaria disappeared from North America, Russia and Europe and retreated dramatically in South America, Asia and Africa in the twentieth century even as the world warmed.

That’s not because the world got less congenial to mosquitoes. It’s because we moved indoors and drained the swamps and used DDT and malaria medications and so on. Human beings are a moving target. They adapt.

But, my fourth point, another reason Simon’s argument fell on stony ground is that so many people had and have a vested interest in doom. Though they hate to admit it, the environmental movement and the scientific community are vigorous, healthy, competitive, cut-throat, free markets in which corporate leviathans compete for donations, grants, subsidies and publicity. The best way of getting all three is to sound the alarm. If it bleeds it leads. Good news is no news.

Imagine how much money you would get if you put out an advert saying: “we now think climate change will be mild and slow, none the less please donate”. The sums concerned are truly staggering. Greenpeace and WWF, the General Motors and Exxon of the green movement, between them raise and spend a billion dollars a year globally. WWF spends $68m alone on educational propaganda. Frankly, Julian, Bjorn, Ron, Indur, Ian, Myron and I are spitting in the wind.

Yet, fifth, ironically, a further problem is complacency. The eco-pessimists are the Panglossians these days, for it is they who think the world will be fine without developing new technologies. Let’s not adopt GM food – let’s stick with pesticides.

Was there ever a more complacent doctrine than the precautionary principle: don’t try anything new until you are sure it is safe? As if the world were perfect. It is we eco-optimists, ironically, who are acutely aware of how miserable this world still is and how much better we could make it – indeed how precariously dependent we are on still inventing ever more new technologies.

I had a good example of this recently debating a climate alarmist. He insisted that the risk from increasing carbon dioxide was acute and that therefore we needed to drastically cut our emissions by 90 percent or so. In vain did I try to point out that drastically cutting emissions by 90% might do more harm to the poor and the rain forest than anything the emissions themselves might do. That we are taking chemotherapy for a cold, putting a tourniquet round our neck to stop a nosebleed.

My old employer, the Economist, is fond of a version of Pascal’s wager – namely that however small the risk of catastrophic climate change, the impact could be so huge that almost any cost is worth bearing to avert it. I have been trying to persuade them that the very same logic applies to emissions reduction.

However small is the risk that emissions reduction will lead to planetary devastation, almost any price is worth paying to prevent that, including the tiny risk that carbon emissions will destabilize the climate. Just look at Haiti to understand that getting rid of fossil fuels is a huge environmental risk.

That’s what I mean by complacency: complacently assuming that we can decarbonize the economy without severe ecological harm, complacently assuming that we can shut down world trade without starving the poor, that we can grow organic crops for seven billion people without destroying the rain forest.

Having paid homage to Julian Simon’s ideas, let me end by disagreeing with him on one thing. At least I think I am disagreeing with him, but I may be wrong.

He made the argument, which was extraordinary and repulsive to me when I first heard it as a young and orthodox eco-pessimist, that the more people in the world, the more invention. That people were brains as well as mouths, solutions as well as problems. Or as somebody once put it: why is the birth of a baby a cause for concern, while the birth of a calf is a cause for hope?

Now there is a version of this argument that – for some peculiar reason – is very popular among academics, namely that the more people there are, the greater the chance that one of them will be a genius, a scientific or technological Messiah.

Occasionally, Julian Simon sounds like he is in this camp. And if he were here today, — and by Zeus, I wish he were – I would try to persuade him that this is not the point, that what counts is not how many people there are but how well they are communicating. I would tell him about the new evidence from Paleolithic Tasmania, from Mesolithic Europe from the Neolithic Pacific, and from the internet today, that it’s trade and exchange that breeds innovation, through the meeting and mating of ideas.

That the lonely inspired genius is a myth, promulgated by Nobel prizes and the patent system. This means that stupid people are just as important as clever ones; that the collective intelligence that gives us incredible improvements in living standards depends on people’s ideas meeting and mating, more than on how many people there are. That’s why a little country like Athens or Genoa or Holland can suddenly lead the world. That’s why mobile telephony and the internet has no inventor, not even Al Gore.

Not surprisingly, academics don’t like this argument. They just can’t get their pointy heads around the idea that ordinary people drive innovation just by exchanging and specializing. I am sure Julian Simon got it, but I feel he was still flirting with the outlier theory instead.

The great human adventure has barely begun. The greenest thing we can do is innovate. The most sustainable thing we can do is change. The only limit is knowledge. Thank you Julian Simon for these insights.

2012 Julian L. Simon Memorial Award Dinner from CEI Video on Vimeo.

Anything Peaceful

Anything Peaceful is FEE’s new online ideas marketplace, hosting original and aggregate content from across the Web.

Pope Francis said to back sainthood for anti-Semitic priest

Canonization in the Roman Catholic Church has already become a charade, with recently deceased popes whose records are likely to be viewed by history quite differently from how they are now rushed to sainthood the way Roman Emperors used to be deified right after their deaths (no matter what rogues they had been in life), but this is even worse: it’s a validation of anti-Semitism, and indirectly of the jihad against Israel, at a time when the Pope should be declaring his solidarity with Israel as the nation bearing the brunt of the jihad that has devastated Christian communities across the Middle East.

The Catholic Church formally rejected anti-Semitism in all its forms at the Second Vatican Council. Why is it going in the other direction now?

No doubt Francis believes that to speak frankly about the jihad against Christians and Jews would be to harm the “dialogue.”

The Catholic Church hierarchy is following a disastrous and ultimately un-Christian line of weakness, willful blindness and submission in the face of evil; many Christians will die as a result.

“Pope Francis said to back sainthood for anti-Semitic priest,” Jerusalem Post, June 5, 2015 (thanks to David):

Leon Dehon, whose beatification was delayed in 2005 following the death of Pope John Paul II, founded the Priests of the Sacred Heart order.

Pope Francis on Friday went on record as supporting the candidacy for sainthood of a French priest who is alleged to have espoused anti-Semitic views, the AFP news agency reported.

Leon Dehon, whose beatification was delayed in 2005 following the death of Pope John Paul II, founded the Priests of the Sacred Heart order.

According to AFP, although he had been declared venerable by John Paul II, his path to sainthood hit a snag when Pope Benedict XVI ordered a commission to probe Dehon’s alleged anti-Semitism.

Despite questions about Dehon’s past, Pope Francis on Friday was quoted by media outlets as saying that he wished for the beatification process to “end well” and that the late priest should be judged within the context of the times in which he lived.

Dehon is reported to have called the Talmud a “manual of the bandit, corruptor, social destroyer” and anti-Semitism as a “sign of hope.”

He also believed that Jews were “thirsty for gold” and that “lust for money is a racial instinct in them.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pope Francis Accepts Resignation of American Archbishop After Sex Abuse Scandal Fallout

Islamic State video calls for jihad in Balkans on eve of pope’s visit

Did Pope Francis call Abu Mazen an ‘Angel of Peace’?

Today we try something a little different as we go back to our “radio-only” days, before we started producing a regular TV show.

So listen as we take some “calls” from our (make-believe) audience and enjoy the ride. Of course, we have to address the nonsensical decision of the Vatican to recognize “Palestine” as a “State,” and just what state may that be?

Tune in and find out.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Canada: 10 Muslims arrested at airport on suspicion of leaving to join Islamic State

Islamic State seizes Syrian city of Palmyra, threatening ancient ruins

How Can So Many World Leaders Be So Wrong?

In a recent Daily Caller article, Michael Bastach took note of “25 Years of predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’.” This is the message that the Earth is warming rapidly and, if we don’t abandon the use of fossil fuels for power, it will arrive to wreak destruction on the human race and all life on the planet.

Cartoon - Man-Made Weather

It is astounding how many past and present world leaders are telling everyone this despite the total lack of any real science, nor any actual warming—the Earth has been in a natural cooling cycle since 1997!

At the heart of the global warming—now called climate change—“crisis” has been the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that has been issuing apocalyptic predictions since its inception in 1988. None of its predictions have come true. How could they, based as they are on the false science of computer models, not that based on observable climate events and trends?

To this day our own government through its meteorological agencies has been caught manipulating the data gathered over the years to conform with the “warming” scenario. The worst has been the Environmental Protection Agency which is engaged in an effort to shut down coal-fired utilities and access to every other energy source on which we depend to power the nation.

Despite this national and international effort, mostly likely based on the liberal ideology that there are too many humans on the plant and dramatic ways must be found to reduce that number. In the past these anti-humanity advocates could depend on famine, disease and wars to kill off millions, but in the modern world that has become less of a threat.

One libertarian think tank, the Heartland Institute, has been leading the battle against the global warming/climate change hoax for a decade. As a Heartland policy advisor I have had a front row seat. In June, Heartland will sponsor the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change bringing together some of the world’s leading scientists to recommend that it is time for Congress to “take a fresh look at climate science”, “explore better science-based policies for energy and the environment”, and, bluntly stated, to “start over on the question of global warming?”

It did not surprise me to learn that Heartland had dispatched staff to Rome when the Pope announced he too was joining the “climate change” advocates despite its lack of any basis in science. The group garnered tons of international media coverage by simply presenting the truth. You can find out more about them here. It didn’t take long for Jeffrey Sachs, a Columbia University professor and ‘special advisor” to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, to write a commentary condemning global warming “deniers” that appeared on a Catholic website called Pewsitter.

Sachs took particular aim at The Heartland Institute and, despite not attending its Rome press conference or any of the presentations the experts provided, did not hesitate to identify Heartland as having been supported for years by the Koch brothers, known for the support of conservative groups and causes.

Joseph Bast, Heartland president, does not let such cheap shots pass by. “The Heartland Instituter has received just $25,000 from a single organization, a charitable foundation affiliated with the Koch brothers during the past 15 years. Our annual budget is approximately $7 million. Even that small gift was earmarked for our work on health care reform, not global warming. Why does Sachs mention the ‘Koch brothers’ unless his intention is to smear an independent organization by falsely implying a much larger or somehow Improper level of support from some singularly unpopular billionaires?”

Bast got to the heart of the war being perpetrated by the either misinformed or deliberately lying world leaders of the climate change hoax. “The dishonesty of Sachs’ reference to The Heartland Institute would be startling, coming from a person of Sachs’ stature, if this sort of misrepresentation of facts weren’t so common in the debate over climate change. President Obama sets the tone. Comparing global warming realists to members of the ‘flat earth society’ and rather ominously calling on his supporters to ‘hold climate change denier’s feet to the fire.’”

“Sachs has had a long and distinguished career as an academic and in various government agencies,” said Bast, “but on this issue he is letter his liberal ideology cloud his judgement. His short essay reveals a disturbing lack of knowledge about climate science and compassion toward the billions of people in the world who will be harmed by the UN’s plans to make energy more expensive and less reliable.”

“Sachs ends his essay with a call on people of all faiths to ‘fulfill our moral responsibilities to humanity nd the future of Earth.’ That responsibility starts with truth-telling. Sachs and his colleagues on the left haven’t reach the starting line yet.”

It doesn’t matter if it is the Pope, the President of the United States, or the UN Secretary General if the assertion that the Earth is warming when it is not or that coal, oil and natural gas must be abandoned to “save the Earth.” Whether from ignorance or a dark hidden agenda, the whole of the global warming/climate change is aimed at harming billions, many of whom need the power that this hoax would deny to everyone.

© Alan Caruba, 2015

EDITORS NOTE: The feature image is of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon with His Holiness Pope Francis, with CEB members. UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

Has Vatican newspaper converted to Islam?

The Vatican daily L’Osservatore Romano ran a piece with the subtitle, “Shooting in Texas at an exhibition of blasphemous cartoons.”

Blasphemous? They’re blasphemous according to Islamic law, because Islam asserts that Muhammad is a prophet. So is the Vatican now submitting to Islamic law? Merriam-Webster defines “blasphemy” as “great disrespect shown to God or to something holy.” So does the Vatican now think Muhammad is holy? Has L’Osservatore Romano converted to Islam? Is Muhammad now considered a prophet by the Catholic Church, like Isaiah or Jeremiah or Ezekiel? Will he get a feast day on the Roman Catholic calendar?

They could have used any other word — offensive, tasteless, odious, whatever. But using the word “blasphemous” sends a hugely misleading message.

Meanwhile, here is an excellent evisceration of the idea that L’Osservatore Romano also puts forward — that our free speech event was needlessly provocative, throwing gasoline on the fire: “Do I Have to Draw You a Picture? The Cartoon Wars Come to America,” by William Kilpatrick, Catholic World Report, May 6, 2015:

…That brings us back to the L’Osservatore Romano article. Its authors decry provocation—“wanting to throw gasoline on the fire”—but have they paused to consider that many Catholic beliefs and practices are also provocative to Muslims? In Saudi Arabia, Bibles and rosaries are considered provocative and no churches are allowed. In some Muslim countries, ringing church bells is considered provocative. In other places it is provocative to rebuild a church that is falling down—so provocative that Christians have lost their lives for the offense. In still other Muslim areas it is considered provocative if a Christian won’t pay the jizya tax, and he can be killed in consequence. In some parts of the Muslim world, simply being a Christian is sufficient provocation for murder.

A large part of the “provocative intent” of the Garland exhibit is to prevent such things from ever happening here. It’s a reminder that the sharia ban on blasphemy is meant to apply not just in Iran and Arabia, but everywhere. Everyone is expected to submit. The event and its aftermath also serves to remind us that it’s not a good idea to let the most violent among us determine the limits of free speech. If the Muhammad Art Exhibit is dismissed as incendiary and needlessly provocative, it means that Muslim extremists get to call the shots about what is and is not a permissible form of expression in America. Today it will be Muhammad cartoons that offend. And tomorrow? Well, it could be anything, because Muslim radicals seem to have an unlimited capacity for being offended. It could even be church bells or rosaries.

Some will say that Geller and Spencer are needlessly stirring up trouble. In reality, they are saving us from much greater trouble down the road by flushing out the danger we face while there is still time to face it down. If Americans don’t pay attention to wake-up calls of the drive-by-jihadist variety, they will wake up someday to find that the time for defending their freedoms has already passed.

RELATED ARTICLES:

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes & Hamas-linked CAIR rep agree Pamela Geller is “odious”

Media shares same goal as jihadis: they want to silence Pamela Geller

“Victims of aggression are not to blame for their attackers’ aggression”

Watch Video: Pamela Geller Spars with Judge Jeanine Pirro Over Free Speech

Saturday Night Cinema: Out of the Past

The Real Hero of Garland

“Zionist temptress was walking down the street in Garland in a too short skirt and hoisted it to reveal her Mohammed thong”

Florida event featuring Geert Wilders canceled for fear of Islamic jihadists

Vatican Silences ‘Climate Heretics’ at UN Papal Summit: ‘YOU WILL BE ESCORTED OUT OF HERE’

VATICAN CITY – Papal heavies shut down an awkward question at a Vatican press conference today when a journalist asked UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon his views on climate skeptics.

Marc Morano, covering the Vatican climate conference for Climate Depot, asked Ban Ki-Moon whether he had a message for the Heartland Institute delegation of scientists who have flown to Rome to urge the Pope to reconsider his ill-advised position climate change.

But before he could finish the conference hosts interrupted to ask which organisation he worked for, then directed the microphone to a more tame questioner, while a security guard came over to mutter in Morano’s ear “You have to control yourself or you will be escorted out of here.”

Morano, together with Christopher Monckton (one of the Heartland delegation) and your correspondent, only narrowly made it into the carefully stage-managed conference where – as known climate sceptics – they were apparently not welcome.

“Ah. So you made it in here?” said a somewhat surprised looking member of the Vatican press team to Morano, when he realized that he had bypassed the Vatican’s security and infiltrated the press pack who had come to cover the conference.

As luck would have it, a heaven-sent shower of torrential rain had created such chaos that security wasn’t as tight as it might have been.

However, the three skeptics (Morano, Monckton, Delingpole) were watched very carefully throughout the proceedings lest they attempt to ruffle the feathers of key speakers Ban Ki-Moon, left-wing economist Jeffrey Sachs and Cardinal Turkson, the Ghanaian priest who has been coordinating the Vatican’s position on “climate change.”

In the end, Secretary-General Ban did answer a similar question, albeit one expressed more delicately by a journalist from the Catholic media, when he was asked what his views were on those members of the Catholic community who had reservations about the Pope’s position on climate change.

Perhaps this was a response to Ban’s rather bold and very moot declaration that “Religion and science are united on the need for action on climate.”

“I don’t think faith leaders should be scientists,” said Ban, in reply to the question. “I’m not a scientist. What I want is their moral authority. Business leaders and all civil society is on board [with the mission to combat climate change]. Now we want faith leaders. Then we can make it happen.”

Secretary-General Ban clearly didn’t need the help from the papal security. As he smoothly demonstrated – as later when he deftly swerved a question about “overpopulation” and whether his previously expressed views that Africa should keep its population down clashed with the Catholic doctrine on contraception – he’s more than capable of squishing inconvenient truths himself.

Climate Skeptics In Rome Warn Pope Francis of ‘Unholy Alliance’ With UN Climate Agenda

Climate Depot’s Morano: ‘The Vatican is essentially going to confuse Catholics into thinking that their positions on man-made global warming fears are now an article of faith — are now part of Catholic doctrine…This is nothing short of an ‘Unholy Alliance’ between the Vatican and the man-made climate fear promoters.’

Retired NASA Scientist Hal Doiron, a member of the team that developed the Apollo Lunar Module landing software: ‘I am here to report today: Houston we do not have a problem. It is impossible to think global warming will cause any problem especially when you look at the benefits of adding CO2 to the atmosphere.’

Meteorology Instructor at the U. of Colorado Dr. Richard Keen:  On UN Climate ‘solutions’: ‘It’s like using surgery to solve a sniffles. It’s bad on two counts. The cure is worse than the ailment and number two, the cure does not even fix the ailment. So why bother? All of these draconian policies that would increase world poverty would be flawed policies that would fail to solve a non-existent problem.’

Former Thatcher advisor Christopher Monckton: ‘It is not the business of the Pope to stray from the field of faith and morals and wander in to the playground that is science. Do not invite only one narrow and boisterous scientific viewpoint that has been repeatedly discredited as events and the science and the data have unfolded.’

ROME – A team of global warming skeptics arrived in Rome and held a press conference just outside of the Vatican to appeal to Pope Francis to reconsider his views on man-made climate change claims. Media coveragehereherehere, here, and here. Also see: CLIMATE SKEPTICS WRITE LETTER URGING POPE TO RETHINK GLOBAL WARMING

The skeptical delegation is in Rome to hold counter events during Pope Francis’ climate summit on April 28 at the Vatican. (See: Pope Francis to Host Major Summit on Climate Change)

The skeptics are laying out a detailed case explaining why climate science does not justify the Vatican putting its faith in the work of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the UN climate agenda.

The skeptical delegation will hold a second event on Tuesday. See:

Tuesday, April 28, 1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. GMT +2 (7:00 a.m. ET)
Palazzo Cardinal Cesi
Via della Conciliazione n. 51 (Piazza S.Pietro)
00193
Rome, Italy

Selected Excerpts from Monday April 27th’s Skeptical Press Conference in Rome held at Hotel Columbus. (Video of the event will be available)

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano:

‘We are here today in Rome, just outside of Vatican City, to make an appeal to the Pope and the Vatican.

And here is the gist of this: No one is really that concerned about what the Pope and the Vatican think about climate science – ultimately.

The difference in what this Pope has done. He appears to be about to take an extra step that other Popes have not. That extra step is to endorse a UN climate treaty. This is a game changer from previous Popes and previous Vatican statements.

The Pope is essentially going to replace Leonardo DiCaprio at this year’s UN climate summit in New York City to speak on behalf of the UN to lobby for a climate treaty. So Leonardo DiCaprio in 2014, to Pope Francis in 2015. This will sow confusion among Catholics in America around the world.

We already have a phenomena that many Catholics recognize — a la carte Catholicism — where Catholics pick and choose which doctrine they want to follow. With the Pope coming out with such strong statements on global warming and endorsing a  UN treaty is very simple, the Vatican is essentially going to confuse Catholics into thinking that their positions on man-made global warming fears are now an article of faith — are now part of Catholic doctrine.

This is nothing short of an ‘Unholy Alliance’ between the Vatican and the man-made climate fear promoters.

One of the greatest friends of poor people around the world – an estimated 1.3 billion people who lack running water and electricity — is carbon based fuels.

The UN IPCC official Edenhofer has stated that UN redistributes wealth by climate policy. See: UN IPCC Official Edenhofer: ‘We Redistribute World’s Wealth By Climate Policy’ edenhofer@pik-potsdam.de

The EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard has said even if were wrong on the science, we are doing the right policy. It’s not about the science. The climate establishment admits that the science does not matter. It doesn’t really matter what the science says, we need these energy policies. So instead of arguing for centralized energy planning on what they think are the merits, they instead use climate fears to force these policies upon the public. See: EU Commissioner: Global Warming Policy Is Right Even If Science Is Wrong – ‘Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices, Europe’s climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard’s has said.’ ‘Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?.’

The Vatican and the Pope should be arguing that fossil fuels are the ‘moral choice’ for the developing world for people who don’t have running water, or electricity.

What is also a concern are the people advising the Vatican.  The global warming establishment is even embarrassed by the choices of advisors Pope Francis has chosen to listen to on global warming.

The Pope can believe whatever he wants on climate science, but he should not just listen to one perspective of the debate. And people like Prof. Peter Wadhams have been chastised by their fellow warmists. NASA’s lead global warming scientist Gavin Schmidt, said Wadhams used charts that had no basis in physics. See: Peter Wadhams is a scientist that even his fellow global warming advocates distance themselves from. See: Warmists attack fellow warmist Prof. Peter Wadhams for ‘using graphs with ridiculous projections with no basis in physics’

German climate adviser Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber was also at the Vatican climate presentation in 2014. Does Pope Francis want to align himself with Schellnhuber’s views? See: Flashback 2009: German Climate AdvisorSchellnhuber ‘proposes creation of a CO2 budget for every person on planet!’

Naomi Oreskes is known for advocating climate skeptics who dissent from the UN/Gore climate alarmist view be prosecuted as mobsters! See: Merchants of Smear: Prosecute Skeptics Like Gangsters?! Warmist Naomi Oreskes likes the idea of having climate ‘deniers’ prosecuted under the RICO act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).

Jeffrey Sachs, a UN special advisor UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. Sachs tweeted on November 10 that ‘Climate liars like Rupert Murdoch & Koch Brothers have more & more blood on their hands as climate disasters claim lives across the world.”

To argue that every storm that happens means skeptics have ‘blood on their hands’ is unscientific. It is frightening that the Vatican is listening to people like Jeffrey Sachs.

This is the kind of advice that Pope Francis and the Vatican are receiving and they are allowing no dissent to be heard.

In 2007, Pope Benedict, our Pope Emeritus, for lack of a better word, warned of prophets of doom of manmade climate fears. See: Flashback: Pope Benedict condemns the climate change prophets of doom

Pope John Paul 2 grew up in Poland and saw what centralized planning and restrictions did to human liberty and development.

There appear to be no ‘consensus’ on global warming within the Vatican. Cardinal George Pell, now a senior Vatican official, has said things sharply different climate view than Pope Francis. See: Catholic Cardinal George Pell: ‘In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in Co2 emissions’

Today’s human sacrifices that Cardinal Pell referred to is the developing world. If we go forward and restrict carbon based energy in the developing world, the poor residents are going to be our modern day human sacrifices.  We must not allow the UN to manage the developing world’s resources and limit carbon based energy.

We appeal to Pope Francis: Do not confuse Catholics. Do not listen to only one side. And do not make views of man-made global warming an article of faith.

Retired NASA Scientist Hal Doiron, a member of the team that developed the Apollo Lunar Module landing software:

Doiron noted that ‘using the same scientific method that put the man on the moon,’ NASA scientists have concluded there is not climate ‘problem.’ Doiron noted that the slogan at NASA: was ‘In god we trust, all others bring data.’

‘I am here to report today: Houston we do not have a problem.

It is impossible to think global warming will cause any problem especially when you look at the benefits of adding Co2 to the atmosphere.

We are convinced that we don’t have a problem with fossil fuels. There is no problem.’

Meteorology Instructor at the University of Colorado Dr. Richard Keen: ‘I am a scientist and I studied climate change for 60 years.’

On UN IPCC: ‘Something is wrong, something is missing. The models are wrong.

It’s like using surgery to solve a sniffles. It’s bad on two counts. The cure is worse than the ailment and number two, the cure does not even fix the ailment. So why bother?

All of these draconian policies that would increase world poverty would be flawed policies that would fail to solve a non-existent problem.’

Former Thatcher advisor Christopher Monckton: ‘It is not the business of the Pope to stray from the field of faith and morals and wander in to the playground that is science.

If you do so, then you should do so as your predecessor did and you should listen to both sides of the scientific argument.

Do not invite only one narrow and boisterous scientific viewpoint that has been repeatedly discredited as events and the science and the data have unfolded.

You demean the office that you hold and you demean the church whom it is your sworn duty to protect and defend and advance. You will be kicking the poor in the teeth. Stand back and listen to both sides. And do not take sides in politics.’

Elisabeth Yore is an international children’s rights attorney:  [The Vatican’s]nexus between human trafficking and climate change is … deceptive and infinitely damaging to the cries of human trafficking victims around the world. This statement places the real human crisis of modern slavery on the same line of the manufactured one of climate change.

Heartland Institute spokesmen Jim Lakely: ‘We’re here to prevent the pope from making the mistake of having the UN as an advisor, because he won’t be getting the whole picture.’

Related Links:

National Catholic Reporter features Climate Depot: Skeptics issues strong, blunt warnings to Pope Francis – Marc Morano, a former advisor to U.S. Senator James Inhofe and who now runs the website Climate Depot, said that Tuesday’s event would “sow confusion” among Catholics about the teachings of the church. “The Vatican is essentially going to confuse Catholics into thinking that your position [on climate change] … is now an article of faith, is part of Catholic doctrine,” Morano said. Morano and others at the event also cited Francis’ concern for those impoverished around the world, saying that policies to fight climate change would limit opportunities for growth in developing countries. “Fossil fuels are the moral choice for the developing world,” said Morano, who also quoted what he said were words by Australian Cardinal George Pell on the subject.

Morano in Rome – Climate skeptics press their case to the Vatican – Catholic paper ‘Crux’: Marc Morano, publisher of an eco-news center called ClimateDepot, said that at the end of the day, “no one cares” what Francis and the Vatican think about climate science. However, he said, penning an encyclical that endorses a UN treaty such as the sustainable development goals would be “confusing to many Catholics around the world,” who could be led to believe that UN positions on climate change and global warming are now part of Catholic doctrine.

Obama Plans to Discuss Climate Change With Pope Francis – Obama: ‘We’re going to talk about climate change I’m sure because he is very clear that part of the Church’s teachings, and part of my faith, is that we have to be good stewards of this incredible planet we’ve been given, and there are steps that can be taken there.’

Message to Pope Francis: Protect the Poor from Harmful Climate Policies

Skeptics Deliver An Open Letter to Pope Francis

Analysis: ‘WHY GOD IS NOT A WARMIST’

Actual headline: ‘Can Pope Francis halt climate change with new papal document?’

CLIMATE SKEPTICS WRITE LETTER URGING POPE TO RETHINK GLOBAL WARMING – “The world’s poor will suffer most from such policies,” the writers contend, adding: The poorest—the 1.3 billion in developing countries who depend on wood and dried dung as primary cooking and heating fuels, smoke from which kills 4 million and temporarily debilitates hundreds of millions every year—will be condemned to more generations of poverty and its deadly consequences. The letter ends with an appeal to the Pope to reconsider what seems to be the direction the Vatican is taking vis-à-vis climate change policies.

‘Global Warming? The Pope is Wrong’

Flashback: Pope Benedict condemns the climate change prophets of doom

CLIMATE SCIENTISTS HEAD TO ROME ON URGENT MISSION TO SAVE THE POPE FROM CLUTCHES OF MANBEARPIG

Climate Skeptics Descend on Vatican – Seek to Influence Pope on ‘Global Warming’

Global Warming? The Pope is Wrong

I have devoted the better part of more than two and a half decades speaking out against the charlatans that have created and maintained the greatest hoax ever imposed on modern man. At the heart of this hoax has been the United Nations environmental program and at the heart of that program is an agenda to initiate a massive redistribution of wealth from industrialized, successful nations to those who have suffered, as often as not, from being ruled by despots of one description or another.

It is with profound sorrow and disappointment that I must now speak out against Pope Francis, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, whom observers have noted has “a green agenda.” He has become an outspoken advocate on environmental issues, saying that taking action is “essential to faith” and calling the destruction of nature a modern sin.

Before proceeding, let me note that I am not Catholic. My thoughts regarding the Pope are rooted in my knowledge of the long record of lies, false predictions, and claims by various environmentalists over the years.

When the Vatican announced it would hold a conference on April 28 called “Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity: The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Development”, I wondered why the Vatican is not holding a conference to organize the protection of Christians—particularly in the Middle East—against the wholesale genocide that is occurring. The Pope is not alone in this. There appears to be little urgency in addressing a threat comparable to the Holocaust of the last century that consigned six million Jews to death for being Jews.

I frankly do not know what is meant by “the moral dimensions of climate change.” Climate change is something that was occurring long before there was a human population on planet Earth. It is the measurement of the previous global cycles through which the Earth has passed for billions of years. It is profoundly natural. Applying a moral dimension to it makes no sense whatever.

As for “sustainable development”, that is a term that environmentalists use to deny any development that benefits the human population.

Environmentalism is deeply opposed to the use of any energy resource, coal, oil, natural gas, as well as other elements of the Earth we use to enhance and improve our lives with habitat of every description from a hut to a skyscraper. Over the last five thousand years we have gone from being largely dependent on wood to the use of fossil fuel energy that keeps us safe against nature—blizzards, floods, hurricanes, forest fires, et cetera.

At the heart of environmentalism, however, is a deep disdain and antagonism to the human race. From its earliest advocates, one can find allusions to humanity as “a cancer” on the Earth. The Catholic Church has been an advocate for the human race, most notably opposing abortion that kills humans in the womb. Its charitable work is legendary.

To grasp how far the forthcoming conference is from the most basic beliefs of Catholicism, one need only take note of the persons scheduled to speak. They include the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, the leader of the institution in which the hoax of global warming was created and advanced. Another is Jeffrey Sachs, the director of the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, another voice for global warming, but neither is going to tell those attending the conference that there is no warming and that the Earth has been a natural cooling cycle for the past eighteen years, tied entirely to a comparable cycle of the Sun.

The Green’s response to the voices of those scientists who courageously spoke out to debunk their lies has been to denounce and try to silence them. There is no science to support the global warming hoax.

The one-day summit will include participants from major world religions. The Pope will issue an encyclical on the environment later this year.

Is there a religious or spiritual aspect to opposing the forthcoming conference and encyclical? One need look no further than Genesis. In a Wall Street Journal commentary, William McGurn drew the lesson that it offers “a reminder that God’s creation is meant to serve man—not man the environment.

Quoting Genesis 2:15: “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it” concluding that “the Earth is to be worked and that this work and the fruit it bears are also blessed.” The spiritual truth to be drawn from this is that man is the steward of the Earth. That does not mean its resources should be abandoned because of bogus claims that the Earth is doomed.

McGurn reminds us that “it is the have-nots who pay the highest price for the statist interventions so beloved the Church of St. Green.” There are more than a billion on Earth who do not have any access to electricity which, in addition to hydropower, is generated by coal, oil and natural gas. Lacking the means to deter the impact of insects and weeds on agriculture, much of the Earth’s annual crops are lost. Lacking access to the beneficial chemicals that protect humans from the diseases transmitted by insects, millions die needlessly.

The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank is leading the effort to alert people to the dangerous message of the Vatican conference because “many people of faith who are familiar with the science and economics of climate change are worried this event will become a platform for alarmism over a controversial scientific issue” noting that “there is no scientific ‘consensus’ on whether there is any need to reduce mankind’s use of fossil fuels.”

The conference agenda is “profoundly anti-poor and anti-life” says the Institute. Plainly said, the Vatican conference incomprehensively would advocate policies whose only result would be the reduction of human life in order to “sustain” the Earth.

“These unnecessary policies would cause the suffering and even death of billions of people. All people of faith should rise up in opposition to such policies.”

The Heartland Institute is sending a team of scientists and climate policy experts to Rome where they will be joined by Marc Morano of the think tank, CFACT. Says Morano, ‘Instead of entering into an invalid marriage with climate fear promoters—a marriage that is destined for an annulment—Pope Francis should administer last rites to the promotion of man-made climate fears and their so-called solutions. This unholy alliance must be prevented.”

© Alan Caruba, 2015

Pope Francis Commemorates 100th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide — “The first of the 20th Century”

Turk_official_teasing_Armenian_starved_children_by_showing_bread,_1915_(Collection_of_St._Lazar_Mkhitarian_Congregation)

Turkish official teasing starved Armenian children by showing bread during the Armenian Genocide, 1915.

Pope Francis chose this Sunday to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide by the Young Turks of the waning Ottoman Empire.  He called it the first genocide of the 20th Century”. The AP reported, that Turkish President Erdogan called “hateful “and “unacceptable.”  He immediately ordered the recall of their Ambassador to the Holy See and had the Foreign Minister invite in the Papal Ambassador.  The AP wrote:

Pope Francis on Sunday called the slaughter of Armenians by Ottoman Turks “the first genocide of the 20th century” and urged the international community to recognize it as such, sparking a diplomatic rift with Turkey at a delicate time in Christian-Muslim relations.

Armenian President Serge Sarkisian, who was on hand to mark the 100th anniversary of the slaughter at a Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica, praised the pope for calling a spade a spade in an interview with The Associated Press. But Turkey, which has long denied genocide took place, recalled its ambassador to the Holy See in protest.

“The pope’s statement, which is far from historic and legal truths, is unacceptable,” Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu tweeted. “Religious positions are not places where unfounded claims are made and hatred is stirred.”

Francis, who has close ties to the Armenian community from his days in Argentina, defended his pronouncement by saying it was his duty to honor the memory of the innocent men, women and children who were “senselessly” murdered by Ottoman Turks.

“Concealing or denying evil is like allowing a wound to keep bleeding without bandaging it,” he said at the start of a Mass in the Armenian Catholic rite honoring the centenary.

In a subsequent message directed to all Armenians, Francis called on all heads of state and international organizations to recognize the truth of what transpired to prevent such “horrors” from happening again, and to oppose such crimes “without ceding to ambiguity or compromise.”

[…]

Turkey’s embassy to the Holy See canceled a planned news conference for Sunday, presumably after learning that the pope would utter the word “genocide” over its objections. Instead, the Foreign Ministry in Ankara summoned the Vatican’s envoy, and then announced it was recalling its own ambassador to the Vatican for consultations.

In a statement, it said the Turkish people would not recognize the pope’s statement “which is controversial in every aspect, which is based on prejudice, which distorts history and reduces the pains suffered in Anatolia under the conditions of the First World War to members of just one religion.”

ravished armeniaOur NER colleague, Dr. Richard L. Rubenstein wrote a chronicle of the Ottoman pogroms and genocides perpetrated  against the Armenians in the late 19th Century and during World War I,  The Armenian Genocide as Jihad”  (January 2015)Dr. Rubenstein is the author of seminal works about the Holocaust and more recently, Jihad and Genocide.   Rubenstein’s opening stanza of his article recalls the appalling depredations wreaked by Turkish and Kurdish auxiliaries:

There is a 1919 silent film about the Armenian genocide, “Ravished Armenia,” originally produced in Hollywood using Turkish documentary footage. It was based on a book by a survivor, Aurora Mardiganian, who also starred in the production. The film originally consisted of nine reels, most of which have been lost. Recently, a twenty-minute clip was found that contains brief scenes of many of the incidents that took place during the genocide.1

Although low-definition, there is one terrible scene toward the end of the clip that is especially difficult to watch. Seldom, if ever, have I viewed a film scene that matches this one in sadistic obscenity. It is a crucifixion scene, but unlike Christian images of Christ on the cross that express symbolically the triumph of eternal life over evanescent human pain, this film’s crucifixion scene carried a very different symbolic meaning. There are eight crosses in a row to which are nailed eight naked, young Armenian women. After the film offers a panoramic view of all of the crosses and their victims, it focuses on a single sufferer. Nailed to the cross, she is helplessly alive. One could tell by her eyes and facial movements that her cognitive functions were unimpaired as she awaited the painful doom of her crucifixion.

The terrible scenes of the deportations, confiscations, sadistic brutality, rapine, outright murder of helpless Armenians, and the crucifixion of the Armenian maidens could not have been filmed without the involvement and consent of Turkish authorities.

The perpetrators took the most sacred symbol of Christendom and turned it into a blasphemous obscenity, symbolically proclaiming absolute Muslim dominance. Nevertheless, something else was involved: women are the child bearers. Their wombs carry the next generation. No words were necessary. The message was clear: “We express our utter contempt for you and your religion. We intend to destroy your future. You have no human rights. We can do with you whatever we wish.”

Nevertheless, shortly after the film was released, Turks apparently had second thoughts about what could be made available publically. Since then, for almost a century, Turkish governments have vehemently rejected the charge that Turks committed genocide against the Armenians. The most Turks have been willing to acknowledge is that both the Turks and Armenians inflicted wartime harm on each other, thereby arguing for moral equivalence between Turkish genocidal violence and rare instances of Armenian defensive action. Admitting that there were massacres, Turkish authorities have insisted that the number of Armenians killed has nevertheless been greatly exaggerated. Moreover, in spite of the publication of a host of well-documented eye-witness reports and testimonies, Turkish governments have used their diplomatic influence to prevent governments, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel and others, from taking any action that would validate the Armenian claim that a nearly successful attempt to exterminate the Armenians of the Ottoman empire took place during the first World War.

In view of the fact that post-war German governments have acknowledged the role of National Socialist Germany in planning and implementing the extermination of Europe’s Jews, why have successive Turkish governments refuse to tread a similar path with regard to the Armenian victims?

[…]

This suggestion is in accord with the first words in Vahakn N. Dadrian’s magisterial study of the Armenian genocides. Dadrian begins: “As a first step toward a full analysis of the nationality conflicts [in the Ottoman Empire], it is necessary to examine Islam as a major determinant in the genesis and escalation of these conflicts.

Ambassador Henry Morgenthau Senior

Henry Morgenthau, Senior

The massacre of 1.5 million Armenians in the midst of WWI was largely met with indifference by the Christian world.  The exception was the American Committee for Syrian and Armenian Relief, now Near East Foundation that created refugee centers for Armenia orphan children. This despite information provided conveyed to the U.S. Statement Department by the American Ambassador to the Sublime Porte, Henry Morgenthau, Senior. President’s Wilson Jewish appointee who served in that post during the period from 1913 until his resignation in 1916. He   wrote a personal account in Ambassador’s Story, about his confrontation with Ottoman officials over eye witness reports he received from Consuls in Van and Aleppo of the heinous crimes committed by Turkish and Kurdish forces. those reports to his friend Aldolph Ochs, publisher of the New York Times.  His book has graphic photographs of the devastation wreaked upon the country’s Armenian minority.   Morgenthau also noted the indifference of the German Ambassador an ally of the Ottoman Turks during this great slaughter.  In a 1915 telegram to the US State Department, Morgenthau “described the massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as a “campaign of race extermination.”  In his book. Morgenthau wrote:

The real purpose of the deportation was robbery and destruction; it really represented a new method of massacre. When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.  Henry Morgenthau, Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story pg. 309.

Ambassador_Morgenthau's_Story_By_Henry_MorgenthauAs noted by Dr. Rubenstein, this first genocide of the 20th Century was used by Hitler as justification for the Final Solution for the murder in unspeakable ways of six million European Jewish men, women and children.  The depredations committed against Jews during the Shoah were not dissimilar from the outrages perpetrated on Armenian throughout the Ottoman Empire, although with an important difference- the organization of a network of slave labor and death camps using technology.  The reports of the Armenian slaughter look eerily similar to those of the Islamic State against Orthodox and Assyrian Christians in both Syria and Iraq 100 years later.  During WWII it was left to the Ambassador’s son, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. ,President Roosevelt’s Treasury Secretary , who with his able staff , brought about  the creation of the War Refugee Board (WRB)  to save an estimated 250,000 Jews who fell into allied hands. The WRB enlisted the aid of Swedish businessman Raoul Wallenberg and others in the diplomatic community that used funds for the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee  to safe house 90,000 Hungarian Jews in Budapest.

100 years after the Armenian Genocide Islamist President Erdogan perpetuates official amnesia conveying it as hateful to Turkish nationalism, when in fact it was a Jihad perpetrated by reformer predecessors of the Young Turks, Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha, Enver Pasha and Djemal Pasha.

Hitler, who admired Islam and Jihad, used the Turkish destruction of Armenians as the model for the Holocaust against the hated infidel Jews.  He reportedly  told his friend, the German Muslim convert Ached Huber, “The only religion I respect is Islam. The only prophet I admire is the Prophet Muhammad.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The below video is the 1919 film RAVISHED ARMENIA , the original movie was also known as  the Auction of Souls:

The following poster shows graphically what happened then and what is happening now to Christians in the Middle East. History tends to repeat itself…

armenian genocide girls crusified

Pope Francis Calls for a Synod of Bishops on Sunday, October 5th, 2014 in Rome

Hope all is well on this wonderful “Feast Day of St. Francis of Assisi” – arguably the greatest of all saints and the first ever to bear the Stigmata – the “5 wounds of Christ”. And, St. Francis is also the name sake of our 266th Catholic pope, the former Jorge Bergoglia of Argentina. And, this weekend – beginning tomorrow, Sunday, October 5th, a very significant event in the history of the Catholic Church, will be taking place – THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS in Rome.

synod

Synod.

The Synod of Bishops, in the Roman Catholic Church, is an advisory body for the Pope. It is:

“[A] group of bishops who have been chosen from different regions of the world and meet together at fixed times to foster closer unity between the Roman Pontiff and bishops, to assist the Roman Pontiff with their counsel in the preservation and growth of faith and morals and in the observance and strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline, and to consider questions pertaining to the activity of the Church in the world”.

Of its nature, the Synod of Bishops is permanent, even when not in session. Periodically, it holds assemblies, which are either general, if called to consider matters directly concerning the universal Church, or special, if called for problems of a particular geographical area. The general assemblies are either ordinary (held at fixed intervals) or extraordinary (held to treat of some urgent matter).

As well as holding these periodical assemblies, the Synod of Bishops has a permanent secretariat which is headquartered in Rome but is not part of the Roman Curia. The Code of Canon Law’s chapter on the Synod of Bishops comes after that on the Pope and the College of Bishops, and before that on the cardinals. In the Annuario Pontificio, information on it is given before that on episcopal conferences.

The “Extraordinary Synod” – the third of its kind in the modern history of the Catholic Church – is part of a process of reflection that will last more than a year. It’s likely to reveal both the nature and, most likely, the limits of the change heralded by Pope Francis. And, it could not have come at a better time. Our world is in a “world of hurt” – sin, violence, war, persecution of Christians, abortion, terrorism, Ebola virus outbreaks, deterioration of the family, you name it.

The coming together of our our Bishops with our Holy Father is truly what I believe GOD has been calling for, for years, now. And, with Pope Francis – the bold and humble leader that he is – I honestly think that the setting and the timing could not have been better. I have personally been calling and pleading for a “Vatican III” for the past several years, as we truly need to get the Holy Catholic Church back on track – back to where Jesus envisioned it over 2,000 years ago when He built our solid Church upon the Rock of Peter.

The Second Vatican Council – commonly known as Vatican II – was, in theory at least, the seismic event in the modern history of the Catholic Church. It was a huge event! It ran from 1962 to 1965 with over 2,800 bishops involved. Some think that it was quite controversial. Others felt like it was the best thing that ever happened to the Holy Catholic Church.

I personally believe that it was “necessary” – just like I believe that this Synod of Bishops taking place in Rome this weekend is long over-due. We need a “shake-up” in the Catholic Church…We need those “Judas warm Catholics” – those sitting on the fence – to wake up and get involved. We need some “house cleaning” – the House of the Lord! We need to overturn those tax collector’s tables all over again at the Temple and run all those out who are sinning and manipulating the system. And, we need all of our clergy – including some of our prominent church leaders – to get back on the same page – the same book – the Holy Bible.

My prayer is that this shake-up isn’t a controversial one – a negative one – but, rather a positive one. One that will even catch the liberal, secular media by surprise and stop them in their tracks. That same media that is salivating, waiting for the pope to make a comment that they can take out of context and make the pope appear that he is just as liberal as they are. They are dying for him to fail, to fall through the cracks. This opportunity is when I truly believe that Pope Francis will have the “global stage” – the platform and the attention of the entire world – and be able to lay down the real Truths of the Catholic Church teachings. I have referred to the pope’s approach as a “Global Open House” – where he has embraced and invited the entire population – the atheists, the sinners, the homosexuals, the outcasts, etc. to come to listen to what he has to say. I think that this Synod of Bishops will be a huge step in the pope’s process of laying down the “law of the land” from a devout Catholic’s perspective.

And, since the topic of discussion at this particular Synod will be “The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization”, you can just imagine how tense the air will be. With so much attention being paid to same sex marriage in today’s society – with “19” states in America allowing same sex marriage to take place in their respective states today…with Pope Francis marrying 20 couples a few weeks ago right there at St. Peter’s Basilica (with some of the couples having lived together and a couple having babies out of wedlock) – you know that there is bound to be some heads turning and some ears burning with what may come out of these conversations.

Is Pope Francis going to play it conservatively and not make any waves with this topic of Family, or is he going to make some statements that may ruffle feathers with the conservative Catholic faithful? How is the Holy Father going to tackle the issue of same sex marriage at this Synod when he already caught the entire world’s attention last year when he calmly made that comment about not judging the homosexual lifestyle during his interview on an airplane coming back from World Youth Day in Rio by uttering those “famous 5 words”: WHO AM I TO JUDGE?

Friends: The stage is set for this weekend in Rome as we truly need to pray that the Holy Catholic Church gets back to the basics of Catholicism – the basics of our beloved Catechism – the principles & doctrines that our church was built on. I, for one, love the “old school” as well as the New Evangelization that Saint John Paul II instituted less than 25 years ago where I honestly believe that every Catholic in this country needs to maintain that balance in his or her walk in Faith. Maintaining that tradition from the true, Traditional Holy Roman Catholic Church, tied in with the New Evangelization that the past 3 popes have clearly elaborated on – is the ideal formula for the Catholic Faithful to build their faith on and to help build the Catholic Church today. That is what Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI Emeritus were banking on and what I pray that Pope Francis continues to push and takes it to another level.

Change is tough. It can be good, but it can be controversial. My prayer is that Pope Francis institutes some wholesome, positive changes (if need be), within the parameters of the institution of the Family and that nothing he institutes or comments on during this Synod, causes the Catholic Faithful to turn on the Holy Father and criticize him for being too liberal, too progressive. Pope Francis will NOT be changing Catholic Church doctrine – just merely delivering it an a less orthodox fashion. As of today, countless Catholics all over the world have criticized the pope for being too liberal and too progressive and for playing too much to the liberal media. The last thing we need at this Extraordinary Synod is for the pope to say something about okaying same sex marriage and having it twisted and turned every which way by every reporter in the world. In my heart of hearts, I think that Pope Francis knows what he is doing and will do what the Holy Spirit has asked him to do in leading the Catholic Church. And, the Holy Spirit is that passionate third person in our Blessed Holy Trinity. GOD and His son, Jesus, will be watching closely and with all the angels and saints – including the humble saint in whose Feast Day we celebrate today, and whose namesake our beloved Holy Father took after – we will be in good hands…in GOD’s hands.

And, all the Catholics in this world said: AMEN…

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of RTE News.

Who is Pope Francis? Perhaps his ‘Transformation on 9/21/53’ may help us understand him better?

Today’s million dollar question: Who is Pope Francis?

I refer to our Holy Father as a Holy Catholic Enigma.

Hope all is well on this day after “Pope Francis’ 61st Anniversary of his Conversion & Call to Religious Life”. Yes, it occurred in Buenos Aires, Argentina on the Feast Day of St. Matthew (September 21st, 1953), some 61 years ago, when a troubled, 16 year old Jorge Mario Bergoglio walked into church for confession. The rest is history…and, the rest is a bit confusing and perplexing – especially the last year year and a half of his 77 years here on earth.

Pope Francis has been at it for 18 months now, as our Holy Father – CEO of 1.2 billion Catholics world-wide. He hit the Vatican ground running on that Feast Day of St. Joseph (March 19th, 2013), as he took the baton from our beloved Pope Benedict XVI Emeritus, who thought it was wiser to resign from his post at age 85, allowing the younger cardinal from Buenos Aires to take it from there. First time we have seen that in the Vatican in 600 years, since Pope Gregory XII resigned in 1415. Wise move from a very wise retiring pope, who gave it his all in his nearly 8 years as our 265th pontiff.

And, if we were to take a national survey today – 61 years after Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s confession & conversion – we would probably see a wide assortment of answers when asked that million dollar question: “Who is Pope Francis”?

Friends: Where does one begin? How does one describe what you have seen, heard and watched from Pope Francis in his short, 18 month tenure so far? Why is it that this pope has caught the attention of billions (as in B) all over the world, as in a stark contrast to his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, who quietly took over after Pope John Paul II’s incredible 27 years? Is it because Pope Francis was elected so quickly by the 121 cardinals and because it was after the resignation of a pope, which we have not seen in 6 centuries? Is it because this pope is from the Americas – South America – of all places? Is it because he has a “chip on his shoulders” and wants to embrace the entire world to the religion of Catholicism like it was meant to be – just like Jesus ordained it to be over 2,000 years ago?

Or is it because this is what GOD ordained and what GOD considers part of the Big Plan? If I had a dollar for every time I have been asked “Willy, what is your take on Pope Francis”, I would be able to buy new text books for all 100 Catholic dioceses in this country who unforgivably adopted the Curse of Common Core and I would get the curse out of every one of those schools immediately.

Friends: Keep in mind that every time Pope Francis answers a question from the media, it is interpreted hundreds of different ways in hundreds of different languages. And, that is why the secular, liberal media love this guy. They get to twist & turn every one of his words and they, for some reason, always take his comments way out of context. That is one reason why he was voted “Person of the Year” last year and why he appeared on the front cover of “Rolling Stone” magazine…not “Roll away the Stone” magazine…The secular media see Pope Francis as a rock star…but, millions of faithful, die-hard Catholics all over the world do not.

And, that is where it gets sticky, confusing, perplexing, frustrating, and some times, down right excruciating. The “old school” Catholics don’t care for the pope being named Person of the Year. They don’t read Rolling Stone magazine. But, they do read the interviews on the pope. They do read his comments on abortion, contraception, same sex marriage and wealth vs. poverty. They saw him wed 20 different couples at St. Peter’s Basilica two Sundays ago (hearing that several of those couples had lived together and a few had babies out of wedlock).  And, the majority of people in this country, alone, still do not know what to make of his ever-famous quote given 3,000 feet up in the air on his return trip from Rio de Janeiro after World Youth Day when our Holy Father uttered his “famous last 5 words”:

WHOM AM I TO JUDGE?

So, with all this being said and with this “enigma-laced” question above still dangling for everybody to interpret – “Who is Pope Francis” – what do we make of all this? Like I told the Palm Beach Post almost a year ago when they interviewed me: “Pope Francis is doing a ‘Global Open House’, where he is inviting EVERYBODY to the table – the haters, the sinners, the homosexuals, the atheists, the outcasts, etc., and is simply getting their attention to be able to sit them all down at one time in about another year and show them what Catholicism teaches – what the Holy Catholic Church truly teaches”…I pray that I am right.

This has been my prayer ever since I heard his interview when he told the reporters “Who am I to Judge”? Believe me, friends, those 5 words do not sit well with me because like I said last year in that same interview – they can be interpreted a million different ways…and, they have been. It sent out mixed messages and truly confused the Catholic faithful. The pope opened up more than a can of worms when he uttered those 5 simple words and many of the Catholic die-hards lost it about then. And, many left the Church and refuse to come back.

And, while Catholic lay evangelists like Matthew Kelly, Dr. Scott Hahn and Tom Peterson are trying their best in “Calling Catholics Back Home”, damage has been done and those “old school” Catholics who were not patient enough to see when Pope Francis is going to elaborate on all of these “new school” expressions (not Catholic doctrine or teachings), may have left prematurely as the Church has lost numerous patrons who said they had seen enough.

And, Catholics are stubborn by nature…So, to ease your minds, please take a good look at this article below, which makes a ton of sense when speaking about Pope Francis. It honestly allowed me to relax a bit and not be so impatient with the pope. It gave me a different perspective on the pope’s perspective. The sections on “personal encounters” and “forgiveness” says a lot about our Holy Father and gives you the sense that he truly does believe in compassion and embracing even those who transgress us. Deep down, I honestly believe that the pope is simply trying to follow in the footsteps of our Lord & Savior, Jesus Christ, but, he does add a bit of flair and drama to his evangelization and preaching, thus, keeping everybody honest and a bit off balance…some more than others.

Enigma: Look it up on Google and see if it says “Pope Francis” under synonyms…He is like the Holy Rosary…a mystery to so many Catholics…a joyful one, though.

All Eyes on Francis

September 18, 2014

All eyes are on Pope Francis.

People around the world are watching what he is saying and doing and trying to understand what it means.

A friend called today from Switzerland: “What do you make of this alleged ‘irritation’ of the Pope over the new book defending traditional Catholic teaching on marriage?” he asked. “And his allegedly asking Cardinal Mueller not promote the book? What’s going on?”

Another friend emailed from New York. He had just spoken with an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi who is well-known in the pro-life movement. “I have been talking to a mutual friend — Rabbi Yehuda Levin, who spoke at the March for Life for several decades. He is a strong supporter of the Catholic Church’s stand against abortion, and for traditional man-woman marriage, etc. He is a spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance of more than 800 Orthodox Rabbis. He feels that if the Church waffles or retreats on abortion or homosexuality or marriage at the upcoming Synod, this will have an adverse effect on Orthodox Judaism and other strong family religions. He is very concerned about the upcoming Synod.”

And another friend wrote, in response to my email of yesterday: “Excellent run down on the issue and cardinals involved. Prelates encouraging or advocating change are gradually ruining the authentic true Catholic Faith. The Roman Catholic Church is not supposed to be a ‘feel good’ Church, waxing and waning to current social issues. It is tragic, that the once prestigious Roman Catholic Church, is now dysfunctional, divided, depleted, contentious and infiltrated.”

And another reader wrote: “Many thanks — was hoping for more clarification on this issue! Will watch this space. Any comment on Cardinal Burke’s new job?” (Note: There have been unconfirmed reports that Pope Francis has decided to move the American Cardinal Raymond Burke from his post in the Roman Curia, as head of the Apostolic Signatura, to a post outside the Curia, as head of the Sovereign Order of the Knights of Malta: see the report on this by Sandro Magister, the Italian Vaticanist, at link).

So many Catholics, and some Orthodox Jewish rabbis, in many countries around the world, are watching Pope Francis, and wondering what he is doing, and what he will do next…

Understanding Francis

Pope Francis, I think, is attempting to make a slight adjustment in the Church’s pastoral focus.

Not to change Church doctrine, but to review and reform how the Church deals with, and cares for, fallen human beings.

This attempt is rooted in both personal experience, and in theological conviction.

Francis is persuaded there is a need to reach out to suffering, wounded, disoriented sinners in part because of a personal experience.

He had a personal, life-changing experience, a mystical experience, of God’s forgiveness of his sin.

It came after he went to confession, at the age of 16, in a church in Buenos Aires.

He has even told us the date: on September 21, 1953 — the Feast of St. Matthew (for this reason, Francis is fascinated by the painting of Caravaggio called The Calling of St. Matthew in the Church of St. Louis of the French near Piazza Navona in Rome; in past years, he often would go there when visiting Rome). This is how the Vatican put it in a biographical sketch published at the time of the Pope’s election last year: “Following a confession, he felt his heart touched and sensed the descent of the mercy of God, who with a look of tender love, called him to the religious life, following the example of St. Ignatius of Loyola.” In these few, spare words, we are told of an experience which transformed the life of young Jorge Mario Bergoglio. He felt his heart “touched” and he “sensed” the “descent of the mercy of God.” He felt, “in a very special way,” the “loving presence of God in his life.”

This experience is part of the reason the Francis wishes to deal with human frailty and sin, not through a restatement of why the sinner is in sin, or in a recitation of the Church’s judgment that the sinner’s choices and actions are sinful, but with mercy, with forgiveness, and so, with an opening out to new life.

There are also theological convictions at the base of Francis’ vision for the pastoral care of Christians — and for all human beings.

Francis is persuaded that the Church is a Mother, that the Church nourishes and protects and supports her children.

He is persuaded that the Lord Jesus, Founder of the Church, still present in the Church, in the Eucharist, in His Word, in his ministers and disciples, and in the love of the members of the Christian community for one another, wishes — as He did when He walked on this earth — to pardon sinners, to forgive them and heal them, not to condemn them and cast them out.

Francis believes in the “personal encounter” — with persons, with a “Mother”… a “Father”… a “Brother” who walks beside us, with us.

And he regards a certain type of “moralism,” which can seem to set laws and precepts and anathemas above such a “walking with,” as something to be avoided, a possible trap for believers.

He doesn’t want to “change the rules” about what is good and evil. Rather, he wishes to forgive those who transgress those rules, and repent, and seek forgiveness.

And he senses that he must privilege this attitude, and this action, or he may lose many souls, who will, sadly, perhaps in despair, turn aside from the way of the Christian faith, unless the Church reaches out to them with arms to embrace and forgive.

And precisely today, Francis spoke about this very personal vision of human life, human morality, and human sin, in his morning homily at Mass in the chapel at his residence, the Domus Santa Marta.

In his homily at Casa Santa Marta, Pope Francis said that it is precisely in one’s sins where one meets Jesus. (Here is a link to a Rome Reports video of parts of the homily: Link)

The Pope said that in recognizing our sins, we are able to experience Christ’s loving forgiveness. He said: “This is why the ability to acknowledge our own sins, to acknowledge our misery, to acknowledge what we are and what we are capable of doing or have done, is the very door that opens us to the Lord’s caress, His forgiveness, to His Word ‘Go in peace, your faith has saved you!” The Pope concluded his homily saying that those who feel themselves sinners open their hearts in confession and experience the mercy of God.

Vatican Radio provided these further excerpts: “He (Christ) only says the word salvation — ‘Your faith has saved you’ — to the woman, who is a sinner.

“And he says it because she was able to weep for her sins, to confess her sins, to say ‘I am a sinner’, and admit it to herself.

“He doesn’t say the same to those people, who were not bad people: they simply did not believe themselves to be sinners.

“Other people were sinners: the tax collectors, prostitutes… These were the sinners. Jesus says this word — ‘You are saved, you are safe’ — only to those who open their hearts and acknowledge that they are sinners.

“Salvation only enters our hearts when we open them to the truth of our sins.”

“This is why the ability to acknowledge our own sins, to acknowledge our misery, to acknowledge what we are and what we are capable of doing or have done is the very door that opens us to the Lord’s caress, His forgiveness, to His Word ‘Go in peace, your faith has saved you!’, because you were brave, you were brave enough to open your heart to the only One who can save you.”

One can see clearly in these words the influence of the Pope’s personal experience of September 21, 1953, which continues to shape his understanding of how he should deal, as Pope, with the issue of moral evil and sin, and with the reality of God’s loving mercy which can forgive such sin.

Pope Francis: Left, Right and Wrong? Left on Marxism, Right on CEO Capitalist Greed, Wrong on Prosperity

This is a response to the pope’s attack on capitalism referenced in the UK Telegraph, January 9, 2014. This Pope is destined to impact the world, but is he right?

This author, as a college youth who spent summers in Colombia and Venezuela, landed in Caracas in 1960 and was shocked to see a Communist demonstration because a Communist diplomat from Cuba was arriving. I was told that the poverty in Latin America was fertile soil for their ideology.

Why the poverty in Latin America? Those countries were colonized by Spain and Portugal at the same time the United States was forming. They have an abundance of natural resources without the severity of climate in the northeast where the pilgrims landed. But after centuries of Catholic dominance, I witnessed a country where millions of people were illiterate and could not read or write. Yet in every village, high above the sheds and shacks, was a cathedral built by money from these poor people. I was told the gold in a Panama cathedral was white-washed to disguise and save it from an invading army.

Alberto Rivera, a converted Jesuit priest, says when his father died, his mother had to give their only cow to the priest to get daddy out of purgatory (a word not found in the Bible). Rivers’s wife believes he died of poisoning. One of his revealing books, The Godfathers, is linked at the end of this article.

The pope admits Marxist friends, but says they are wrong—after all, they don’t believe in God, and one of the pope’s titles is ‘Lord God the Pope.’ That claim and the persecution of those who would not bow to the pope led Protestant Reformers to believe the papacy was the “little horn” power that grew out of the Roman Empire in the imagery of Daniel 7’s sequence of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia and Rome.

The pope is right about capitalistic greed of CEO’s paid such inordinate amounts. The Bible says, “The love of money is the root of all evil.” [1 Timothy 6:10]. But the pope forgets the Sermon on the Mount; We can’t take the speck out of our brother’s eye till we take the beam out of our own. [Matt. 7:3,4].

The Vatican is the largest holder of land titles for any organization or government in the world with visible title at around USD $316 Billion of property (churches, schools, hospitals etc.) and around USD $264 Billion of investment property hidden in extremely complex networks of hundreds of thousands of trusts and front companies. AND THAT’S JUST THE BEGINNING!” [Sic, Comment in UK article]

The Bible teaches prosperity and America flourished from 1776 to JFK when conflict with his church over the Vietnamese War may have contributed to his demise. Since JFK, every president may have been threatened with the same destiny as they moved us toward a New World Order with Rome behind it all. Rome is the recipient of wealth from banks as Karen Hudes reveals half-way through her expose.’ Search YouTube for Karen Hudes World Bank Whistle-blower; huge revelation that may get her killed.

Now we have a majority of Supreme Court Justices that are Catholic and Congress is mostly Catholic or catholic (universal—go along to get along). Where are the Protestants? No wonder this country is about to get flushed down the toilet of economic greed, moral pollution, and spiritual depravity.

Rome’s role in both World Wars is exposed in Rivera’s Godfathers and may be read online. The Bible describes the harlot (a woman represents a church in Bible prophecy, Jeremiah 6:2) as decked with gold and precious stones (wealthy church) and is the mother of abominations, Revelation 17:4,5. How it got there is well-described in a chapter of The Great Controversy a best-seller that can be read online.