"None Dare Call It Conspiracy" Dept.

My words will be in regular font below.

Rome is going after another religious community...and again...its not about heresy or morals...if you're faithful...these guys in Rome will find you...

I want to focus for a moment on this tidbit.

if you're faithful...

Faithful to what though? It too often sounds like so-called "traditionalists" merely want to do whatever they want whenever they want and have no oversight from Rome whatsoever on anything.

Or to be blunt: basically mouth the words of obedience to the pope but then act like a bunch of little Luthers where the rubber of abstraction meets the road of reality.

#################

shawn thats just patently false...and you know it...

What is so false about it? I have yet to hear a supposed "traditional" order which does not bitch and moan every time they are asked to do anything they do not want to. I am reminded of the words of St. John of the Cross when he spoke of spiritual gluttons:

"You will find that many of these persons are very insistent with their spiritual masters to be granted that which they desire, extracting it from them almost by force; if they be refused it they become as peevish as children and go about in great displeasure, thinking that they are not serving God when they are not allowed to do that which they would. For they go about clinging to their own will and pleasure, which they treat as though it came from God; and immediately their directors take it from them, and try to subject them to the will of God, they become peevish, grow faint-hearted and fall away. These persons think that their own satisfaction and pleasure are the satisfaction and service of God...

These persons have the same defect as regards the practice of prayer, for they think that all the business of prayer consists in experiencing sensible pleasure and devotion and they strive to obtain this by great effort, wearying and fatiguing their faculties and their heads; and when they have not found this pleasure they become greatly discouraged, thinking that they have accomplished nothing. Through these efforts they lose true devotion and spirituality, which consist in perseverance, together with patience and humility and mistrust of themselves, that they may please God alone. For this reason, when they have once failed to find pleasure in this or some other exercise, they have great disinclination and repugnance to return to it, and at times they abandon it. They are, in fact, as we have said, like children, who are not influenced by reason, and who act, not from rational motives, but from inclination...

These persons who are thus inclined to such pleasures have another very great imperfection, which is that they are very weak and remiss in journeying upon the hard road of the Cross; for the soul that is given to sweetness naturally has its face set against all self-denial, which is devoid of sweetness. [St. John of the Cross: Dark Night of the Soul Book I, Chapter IV (c. 1580)]

I do not see what more I could add to what that Doctor of the Church noted above.

or if you dont you arent paying attention...

Or maybe I am simply not paranoid and automatically distrustful of anything coming out of Rome.

If you stand out in any way because you arent simply status quo for the liturgy or theology as its been since 1965....

There are not two churches, only one. I am now reminded of the words of Cardinal Ratzinger from The Ratzinger Report circa 1985:

"I see no future for a position that, out of principle, stubbornly renounces Vatican II. In fact in itself it is an illogical position. The point of departure for this tendency is, in fact, the strictest fidelity to the teaching particularly of Pius IX and Pius X and, still more fundamentally, of Vatican I and its definition of papal primacy. But why only popes up to Pius XII and not beyond? Is perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one’s own already-established convictions?"

The same principle applies to your choice of the year 1965 as opposed to some trads choice of 1958 or others who choose an earlier point in time. Again, "[i]s perhaps obedience to the Holy See divisible according to years or according to the nearness of a teaching to one’s own already-established convictions?"

they come after you...

As I said earlier, I have yet to hear a supposed "traditional" order which does not bitch and moan every time they are asked to do anything they do not want to.

.they are targeting orders who simply offer the New Mass in Latin...etc...

Something tells me it is not as simple as that.

its not even necessarily about tradition...its about *any* idea that perhaps the liturgical reform went to far...

See my prior comment.

when they did their first or second purge no one could say for sure...

"[P]urge"? You speak of the Vatican with the same language usually reserved for totalitarian despots like Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union.

but now...after several...its immediately apparent that this is simply bad will...

See my prior comments.

and the ignoramus joao braz de aviz is often involved...

You mean a Cardinal who was given his red hat by Pope Benedict XVI?

Seriously, I do not see how my original much briefer statement was not spot on. I will close with some words of St. Francis de Sales:

Most people permit themselves absolute latitude in criticising and censuring rulers, and in calumniating nationalities, according to their own opinions and likings. But do you avoid this fault; it is displeasing to God, and is liable to lead you into disputes and quarrels. [St. Francis de Sales: Introduction to the Devout Life Chapter XXVIII (c. pre 1622)]

Revisiting the Subject of the SSPX and Their Status:

I am as a rule loathe to talk about the matter anymore either here or elsewhere and have been for a long time because it bores me to tears and life is frankly too short for that. However, since I have in the works a project before this year is out which will unavoidably touch on these matters to at least some extent, it seems to me appropriate to quote here with some modifications the text of an update on SSPX matters originally published in April of 2017 at an now-obsolete weblog when I decided to resume publishing here at Rerum Novarum.

My reason for doing that is there have been a lot of changes in these areas over the years and to a certain extent, my previous involvement in these areas made me in conscience feel I need to note these matters at least briefly and in passing from time to time in the interest of the greatest possible accuracy and fairness. As it was not necessary to previously do so here, I did it elsewhere in an old archived weblog where these matters used to be covered fairly regularly. As it is necessary due to what will be forthcoming to touch on these matters here, I have to do so on this humble website despite my general distaste for such things and that time is the intention of this posting.

--The Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) as a result of events from 2009[...] eventually and in a most welcome move expelled Bishop Richard Williamson in 2012.

-- In an ecclesiastical trial involving an SSPX priest back in 2015, the Holy See made SSPX Superior General Bishop Bernard Fellay a judge in the case and possibly other cases pertaining to SSPX priests.

--Pope Francis had during the 2015-2016 Jubilee Year granted faculties to the SSPX for their priests to validly and licitly offer absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

--At the end of the Jubilee Year, Pope Francis extended this faculty indefinitely as of this writing.[...] For that reason, much as with a couple of other subjects like the lawfulness of the 1962 Missal[...], the status of the four bishops of the SSPX as excommunicate[...]: these were all situations where the circumstances have changed from when they were covered by myself and others in various writing projects through roughly July of 2007.[...] Therefore, what is written here on those matters at the time they were written remain as an archival reference source on those subjects but due to changing circumstances and occurrences are no longer per se as valid as they were when originally written.[...]

I have outlined elsewhere{1} how in all subsequent matters of this nature I view these and other related matters will best be dealt with in perpetuity.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Note:

{1} For Preserving the Historical Record (circa September 13, 2018)

Catholics and Private Revelation Part II: The Voice of Tradition

As I noted previously, when this website was suspended for more than seven years, I occasionally continued to write material for other publishing mediums. One of those projects was a column written five years ago for Catholic Lane, a website Kevin Tierney used to be one of the webmasters of. The aforementioned column can be viewed at the link above.

On Divisive Terms, Dialogue, and Reading "The Signs of the Times"... A Guest Editorial

When this website was suspended for more than seven years, I occasionally continued to write material for other publishing mediums. One of those projects was a guest editorial I wrote about five years ago for Kevin Tierney's now defunct weblog which can be viewed at the link above.

Points to Ponder:

"When once men recognize, both in private and in public life, that Christ is King, society will at last receive the great blessings of real liberty, well-ordered discipline, peace and harmony. Our Lord's regal office invests the human authority of princes and rulers with a religious significance; it ennobles the citizen's duty of obedience. It is for this reason that St. Paul, while bidding wives revere Christ in their husbands, and slaves respect Christ in their masters, warns them to give obedience to them not as men, but as the vicegerents of Christ; for it is not meet that men redeemed by Christ should serve their fellow-men. ‘You are bought with a price; be not made the bond-slaves of men.'

If princes and magistrates duly elected are filled with the persuasion that they rule, not by their own right, but by the mandate and in the place of the Divine King, they will exercise their authority piously and wisely, and they will make laws and administer them, having in view the common good and also the human dignity of their subjects. The result will be a stable peace and tranquility, for there will be no longer any cause of discontent.

Men will see in their king or in their rulers men like themselves, perhaps unworthy or open to criticism, but they will not on that account refuse obedience if they see reflected in them the authority of Christ God and Man. Peace and harmony, too, will result; for with the spread and the universal extent of the kingdom of Christ men will become more and more conscious of the link that binds them together, and thus many conflicts will be either prevented entirely or at least their bitterness will be diminished." [Pope Pius XI]

Senator Grassley Was Wrong About Chief Justice Roberts

WOMAN SUES SAMSUNG FOR $1.8M AFTER CELL PHONE GETS STUCK INSIDE HER VAGINA

On Conspiracy Theories and Faulty Conspiracy Apologetical Methodology:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I originally intended to write an article on this subject saving various snippets from contributions I made to various Wikipedia articles on this subject. However, this website was suspended before I could tend to that matter. In going back to peruse the live links themselves, apparently Wikipedia at some point blocked me from contributing there until sometime in 2020. I suspect it was because of the blurbs below which were hardly helpful to propagating the conspiracy weltanschauung that was being perpetrated on the pertinent discussion threads at the time. So though some context will be lacking, I will post the blurbs here since I abhor censorship and to put out there what apparently Wikipedia conspiracy advocates who moderated such threads were too scared to let remain on said threads. So below in fire coloured font is the material published as it was originally written including any spelling or grammatical errors I made at the time.Without further ado...


Courtesy of a former conspiracy theorist.

It seems appropriate to add this to the beginning of the scroll to make sure that there is at least a modicum of balance to the discussion at hand -certainly the article itself notes a lot of information on the subject and does not include after its "criticism" section a "rebuttal to criticisms." This silence appears to imply that the position of the "conspiracy theorist" critics is irrefutable which an article interested in a neutral POV should avoid the impression of giving even by implication.

I should also note in the interest of disclosure that I spent a few years in college obsessed with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, etc. I went so far as to track down a rare copy of Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope as well as Dan Smoot's work The Invisible Government (both of which were in my college library at the time incidentally enough) along with several other stock texts, had several back issues of various "conspiracy" magazines, and even was fired from a job (indirectly) over my obsession with the stuff. This is noted at the outset because I am more than familiar with the stock "arguments" propounded and the proof-texts brought forward to sustain the "theory" (so-called) and therefore will not be swayed by those who try to throw them at me as if I am unaware of them. However, if we look at some of the fundamental elements of rational thought and how they present themselves amongst those commonly taken in by these "theories", some disturbing patterns present themselves.

Why does everyone presume that all members of any organization have the exact same views and no disagreements on policy or other factors are involved in the mix? Somehow we are to believe that all who belong to CFR all have the exact same views -find for me a single organization anywhere in the world where this happens! This factor alone would account for several of the stock proof texts from old issues of Foreign Affairs or wherever where one member's opinion is thereby not transmogrified into the collective viewpoint of the whole.

Furthermore, why do all those who harp on the CFR as some "big conspiracy organization" forget to point out all the blown predictions that the "gurus" propounding these conspiracy "theories" over the decades have made? The stock response to this stuff is that the CFR and their other "affiliates" (i.e. Bilderburgers, Trilateral Commission, Royal Institute of International Affairs, or whatever) found out what they (the "prophets of world conspiracy") were onto with regards to their "master plan" and then changed their tactics to avoid "detection" or whatever. Is it possible that countless blown predictions by these sorts over the decades being swept aside and other bold predictions being made is a sign not of a "Borg-like single mentality" of the members but instead that the "conspiracy theorists" themselves are operating wholly or at least in part from a defective operative presupposition? After all, the focus is almost always on only what the "theorist" believes will sustain their interpretation with potentially controverting evidences ignored or (if they are interacted with at all) caricatured in classic "straw man" fallacy and then dismissed as "refuted" or whatever.

It appears to me that the approach taken by the "conspiracy theorists" is no different than that taken by the flat earth activists who claim to offer a "reward" for anyone who can "prove" the earth is not flat or the holocaust deniers who offer "rewards" for "proof" of the holocaust happening. In all these cases, no degree of proof can satisfy the party in question because they have prejudged the matter as one that does not admit of them possibly being wrong. This is the same mindset that blames in true xenophobic fashion all perceived "outsiders" as being the source of any and all "evils" -can anyone say Jewish blood libel trials of the Middle Ages? How about blaming everything from the assassination of Lincoln and Kennedy to any calamity of the past four hundred years to the "papists" or the "Jesuits"? More could be noted but the bottom line is this: it is always easier to comfort oneself in dealing with issues that have a befuddling complexity to them by having recourse to simplistic "explanations" and then ignoring or refusing to come to grips with the problems of reason and logic (not to mention fact) that such "explanations" may have.

Now do not misunderstand me here, I am not going to claim that there are no members of CFR and other such groups past (or present) who do not have an outlook that is what would be called "globalist" in many respects. The fallacy is the claim that all members have the same views which is its own form of stereotyping. The charm of these "theories" is that they purport to give a simplistic explanation for much more complex geopolitical strata.

And for those who would complain about a lack of "balance" or whatever to the Wikipedia article itself, let us see if my comments remain in this discussion thread unedited or not. I have saved the text and I will check back periodically to see if this thread is truly one of "discussion" or if it is instead one long rant for a single viewpoint which seeks to censor or suppress the views of those who do not agree: ironically the same complaint the "conspiracy theorists" have about how they are treated! Those who would see another example of the violation of non-contradiction in such a "censoring" by world government advocates would be correct of course...time will tell if my note remains on this file in its unedited entirety or if by demonstration (read: editing or removing these comments in any respect whatsoever) my suspicions about the "ethics" of conspiracy theorist sorts as a rule will be confirmed.ShawnM (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Put down the thesaurus and back away slowly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am impressed that the longer thread is still up...time will tell if that will change. As for the person who presumes that I need a thesaurus to write the way they (presumably) to either write themselves or read what I wrote, some of us are not so limited. ShawnM (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)



Of course that is one small snippet (half of a sentence actually) taken from a twenty-two page article! Have you actually bothered to read the entire article to place that phrase in proper context? It is a near-certainty that you did not as "conspiracy theorists" by nature take these matters on faith from second and third hand (or worse) sources and do not check these matter for themselves. And as a text without context is a pre-text (for whatever interpretation you want to place upon it) you would be wise to do so along with considering what I said in the above paragraphs about one person's opinion editorial in a publication (be it Foreign Affairs or any other journal or periodical) being THE view of the CFR.ShawnM (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Points to Ponder:

Words can not describe the sad impressions that have been made on me by the agitation continually growing among Catholics, by these intolerable polemics, by this confusion of ideas, and above all by this lack of respect and of obedience to the Holy Father. I regard this as the worst of all the damage, and I offer most earnest prayers for this to come to an end. For us Catholics the name of the Pope is sacred and untouchable. The confusion which dominates minds, the doubts which arise from it, the judgment of the press, sometimes so unjust, and finally, the outbursts of emotions constitute a state of affairs which is deplorable. It behooves all of us to pray to God that some remedy be found. [Cardinal Rampolla: As quoted in The Life of Benedict XV written by Rev. Walter H. Peters. (c. 1959)]

Briefly...

I wonder if anyone from #NeverTrump will be buying any of the #Avenatti2020 campaign swag, particularly the special Avenatti2020 wifebeaters.

#Avenatti2020

On the Scandals in the Church and How to Respond To Them:

I was about to post a shorter response that I realized would lack context if I did not include the back story to it. So I will do so at this time putting in blockquote the original source. My interlocuter's words will be in orange font with my original response to them in purple. Without further ado...

I once again want to appeal to those who post about the Church's problems, to ask themselves, "What effect will my post have on others, as far as their ability to live faith, hope, and charity, and what effect will my post, my thinking, and my message have, on myself." 

At ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood, we seminarians were asked to swear oaths in writing, that what we undertook in ministry, we did so, with "no other purpose than the glory of Almighty God, the good of the Church/exaltation of the Faith, and the salvation of my own soul." 

We had to write this out, in hand, in various copies, when we petitioned for Holy Orders.

That is, or should be the priority, when it comes to writing about the Pope, or the bishops, or my personal bishop, or my pastor, or the clergy in general. First, is what I post, especially on a social network, giving glory to God? I don't mean is it giving glory to God in a subtle or roundabout way. Is it glorifying God in a sense, obvious to the average reader? 

Second, is what I write about all the workings of the Church, and post, on Facebook, building up the Church and showcasing the beauty of Catholic Faith? What do the non-Catholics and unbelievers walk away with, when they see my posts on a papal document, a synod, or a meeting of the bishops? Are they now tempted to join RCIA? Do my Catholic brethren read my posts about the Church and experience an increase in the theological virtue of hope? Or of charity? 

And third, what about the salvation of my own soul. People who repeat, often, the quote about the "auto-demolition of the Church" must understand, that the auto-demolition of the Church begins with the auto-demolition of my own soul, by failing to seek holiness and the peace of Christ. 

I have heard it all from people who get irritated with these questions: "Excuse me, but I have a right to be angry! Don't you know that it's my right to express my opinions and anger to the pastors of the Church? I have a crusade for justice, and like Catherine of Siena I will not be silent! It is excessive papalotry and thinking the hierarchy is impeccable that got us into this mess!" 

However, read the writings of the saints, when they are angry or enraged. I don't mean those pithy quotes that fit in a meme, or that are cut and pasted from their context. Read an entire chapter or passage of an angry statement from a saint. What is the difference between what the saints write, and what we post? 

The difference is that the saints and holy people who are not yet canonized leave us with a sense of trust in God. They leave us with the sense that the Faith is beautiful and strong, even when its leaders fail and are weak.

The difference is that holy people will always leave us with a sense that we must reach out to, and try to save, even the adversaries within the Church that we hate or dislike. I am not alone when I say that the comments made about Pope Francis, or a failed bishop in the Church, or a priest who is lost, are often without any evidence of this desire that they be saved. 

My sense is that the exclamation, "He needs prayers!" or "God help him" are more of a desire for God's wrath and vengeance upon the pope or the clergy, and less a desire that they see the light and be saved by God. And those are exclamations from people who are nice. Most comments run along the line of how stupid, insane, evil, lying, sneaky, pernicious, treacherous, laughable, and disgusting these people in the Church are.
Just some things to think about.

We should be asking ourselves similar questions when posting about problems in the world in general. It certainly doesn’t give glory to God passing over in silence the malfeasance of the Church hierarchy. If we are not willing to hold the leadership of the Church to basic moral standards we have right to,be taken seriously by the world at large.

I am unaware that there is anything in that post that says one must "pass over in silence" anything. Calling for being measured and balanced (spiritually and otherwise) in how one responds to issues/problems is the hallmark of traditional Catholic spirituality. And its never more worth pondering than when doing so means someone has to check their own inclinations on these matters.

the post casts aspersions on the motives of those who criticize the Church hierarchy.

Not really. It only applies to those who do such things in ways alien to how someone with a proper and authentic spiritual disposition would go about these matters.

I get the “sense” that this is a veiled way of telling people they should shut up about what’s going on.

See my previous comments.

What we should be “thinking” about here is the veracity of the claims made, such as those being made by Archbishop Vigano.

Here we go...

Even Cardinal Ouellette concedes Viganò’s claims while claiming the Archbishop said things he didn’t say.

Actually, this is not true. Archbishop Vigano has spun like a top on his fundamental claim and his ardent disciples are not being honest about this.{1} Furthermore, Vigano revealed in his third "testimony" what his real motivations were for "speaking out" and they were not what the lions share of those who are lauding his supposed "brave stance" are claiming. In Vigano's own words:

I have been accused of creating confusion and division in the Church through my testimony. To those who believe such confusion and division were negligible prior to August 2018, perhaps such a claim is plausible. Most impartial observers, however, will have been aware of a longstanding excess of both, as is inevitable when the successor of Peter is negligent in exercising his principal mission, which is to confirm the brothers in the faith and in sound moral doctrine. When he then exacerbates the crisis by contradictory or perplexing statements about these doctrines, the confusion is worsened.

Therefore I spoke.

In other words, he did not speak up because of the sex abuse of the clergy or to give voice to the victims of it. His reason for speaking up was for another reason; namely, he did not like the pope's approach to theology, most notably moral theology. In other words, his testimonies were precisely what Cardinal Ouellet said they were: political frame jobs. 

More could be noted but again, what is the point since Vigano is being treated by his most ardent advocates no differently than the way conspiracy theorists do when you address the substance of their complaints and point out how they do not square with what they claim?{2} Besides, Vigano is in reality nothing more than an avatar for those who despise the pope and/or otherwise wish to find ways to undermine him. This is becoming more evident over time and since he is not completely wet in his accusations{3}, it makes it easier for those for whom he is said avatar to be strident at times in their defenses of him.

Well, people aren’t going to shut up about this, not should they.

See my initial comments about authentic spiritual dispositions{4} above.

Measured? In proportion to the corruption we are seeing in the episcopate and even the pope himself, calling this cancer the cancer it is is pretty damned measured if you ask me.

See my previous comments.


Notes:

{1} I thought about writing on this point in detail a while back but after the draft was finished, I decided after pondering the matter overnight to leave it in draft form. Why? Because I am not so sure I want to go into another round of addressing those who engage in "the circle is really a square" type arguments. It is sorta like discussing the atomic issue insofar as those with their minds stubbornly made up are not going to be open to reassessing their operative presuppositions so one has to ask themselves of what real value can such things ordinarily have.

{2} I have written a lot on the mentality behind conspiracy theories in recent years but most of it was in the form of Facebook notes back when this site was suspended. (Though there were a few examples that come to mind from the pre-suspension days including this one and this one.) One such example recently re-formatted and reposted to this website can be viewed here.

{3} There are some claims Vigano has made that appear to be accurate -most notably what he said about Weurl and Sodano. However, as I have never liked Sodano, its possible that personal biases are colouring my view of Vigano's claims where he is concerned.

{4} To note one such example of many that come to mind, that of St. Catherine of Siena often cited out of context by those who fancy themselves followers of her:

"He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don't pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don't trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you. God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal." [Letter to Barnabas, the Viscount Lord of Milan on the Pope and Obedience to Him (circa ante 1380)] 

David Burge
@iowahawkblog
Latest financial genius from Illinois: a Coyote Ugly Tax to force fleeing residents to gnaw off their own limbs to get away

Quote Tweet
zerohedge
@zerohedge
Progressives Zero-In On Exit-Tax On Illinois Wealth...


6:42 PM · Nov 13, 2018

How Illinois is not the worst state to live in rankings-wise is a mystery to me.

Briefly...

Some simple solutions to avoiding voting circuses like Broward County:

--Require voter ID, no exceptions.

--No more early voting, period.

--Registration must be 90 days before an upcoming election to be eligible to vote in said election.

--With the exception of military and folks overseas, no more voting by mail.

--Eliminate "divining voter intent" bullshit. Either you follow the rules or your ballot gets chucked.

--Anyone who is not a citizen who is caught voting gets five years in prison.

--Anyone caught willfully and knowingly enabling a non-citizen to vote gets ten years in prison.

Also worth consideration but not likely to be undertaken:

--If you are on public assistance within six months of an election, your eligibility to vote in that election is suspended. Exceptions to this rule would include (i) food stamps, (ii) receiving unemployment benefits, (iii) if you are a veteran.

Points to Ponder:

If your wife doesn’t like the aroma of your cigar, change your wife. [Zino Davidoff]

Ted Cruz And Beto O’Rourke Talk With Texans, Pose In Photo Together, Showing Us That Civility Isn’t Dead

Believe it or not children, there was a time when political adversaries could be close friends. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson are perhaps the most famous such pairing but there was also Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, Ulysses S. Grant and James Longstreet, Barry Goldwater and John F. Kennedy, Goldwater and Hubert Humphrey, Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill, Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

To be clear, I am not saying Beto O'Rourke and Ted Cruz will ever be that kind of friendly to one another. However, even showing we can have civility among political adversaries is something that is very badly needed in this day and age so for this, they both deserve a fair share of credit!

Briefly...

I want to propose the following solution to the Accosta situation:

President Trump should restore Accosta's press credentials and then proceed to never call on him at press conferences ala what Mr. Obama regularly did with the Fox News journalist at his press conferences. Trump could even call it "The Obama Rule."

Study: FDA Regulations Could Cost U.S. 25,000 Jobs

Trish
@wtffiles

I wish people would stop using the phrase "voter intent". What they really mean is "this person was too stupid to read the instructions." #FloridaRecount
8:07 PM · Nov 13, 2018

^^^THIS!!!

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.
— Lt.-Col. John McCrae (1872 – 1918)