Pope Francis Correct about Inadmissibility of Death Penalty in "Context of the Gospel"

New Era World News and Intelligence

POPE FRANCIS IS BEING FALSELY ACCUSED once again.  On August 2, 2018, the pope announced a revision to the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the death penalty. Detractors are wrongly claiming that the pope declared the death penalty has ceased to be a valid moral option.  Rather, many report, that Francis stated that the death penalty is “intrinsically evil” and anyone employing it NOW is involved in a sinful act. Life Site News, 1 Peter Five, the Lepanto Institute and other “Catholic News Agencies” continue to paint Pope Francis as a sinister or weak-minded pretender, an “Antipope” who confuses issues thereby introducing moral error and step-by-step leading the Church into apostasy. But do not worry they assure us, there is a “Papal Posse” (led by EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo, the self-appointed sheriff) out to round him up and bring him to trial before he can do any more damage.

The Church does not need supposed Catholic News Agencies to identify the pope’s theological errors because the pope is not guilty of any theological errors. In fact, if such news agencies continue acting as papal judges, they might risk bringing condemnation upon their own heads. They act as though they alone are capable of guiding the flock because they alone are able to “see.”  It would be better for them if they were blind. Then they would at least have a valid excuse, but they claim to see – therefore their guilt remains:

“Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see. (Therefore) Your sin remaineth” (John 9:41).

The Lord refers to such men as “blind guides” (Matt 23:24) and cautions his humble followers, those who hear His voice (John 10:26-27), to ignore false shepherds who are consciously or unconsciously doing the work of their father, the devil.


“My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me. And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish” (John 10: 27).

“Why do you not know my speech (Jesus asks)? Because you cannot hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof” John 8 42-47).

Jesus speaks in ways that are impossible for false prophets to speak: He is an excuser (Matt 26:28), the devil is an accuser (Rev 12:10). The Pharisees followed and talked like the latter (Mark 2: 15-16). Therefore they failed to heed the Lord’s words, failed to grasp the centrality of Mercy (Matt 9:10-13) and then wrongly accused Jesus of teaching error (John 10:33; Matt 26:59-64). Wise men should think twice before repeating pharisaical accusations against Christ or His Vicar, especially when they should know that Jesus taught Peter that he would be falsely accused, that his accusers would come from his own house, and that the false accusers would be condemned as blind guides. To the extent they are conscious of their malady, the more they are culpable. Nonetheless, in reality (conscious or unconscious) men who falsely cry wolf, as the pharisees did regarding Jesus (Luke 11:16) and as these men are regarding His vicar, men such as these will eventually be devoured by the wolves (Matt 24-21) along with those who have had the great misfortune of listening to and believing them.

No, it is not the pope who is a wolf in sheep’s clothing; it is not the pope who is introducing confusion by twisting texts, employing subtle vocabulary,  introducing foreign teachings; it is not the pope who is stealthily misrepresenting the magisterium.  NO, IT IS NOT THE POPE THAT EMPLOYS THESE METHODS BUT THE ANTI-PAPAL FAKE NEWS MEDIA THAT EMPLOYS THEM TO MISLEAD THEIR UNSUSPECTING “SHEEPLE.” Those eager to trip the pope up either are unaware of, ignore, or overlook their own errors and then in the name of truth, zealously foist error on their readers, such as the errors introduced recently by Life Site News,  One Peter Five, Professor Robert de Mattei of Lepanto Institute (cited by the Remnant) and Dr. Edward Feser:

Life Site judges itself so completely competent that it even dares to call the pope a “heretic”:

“Pope Francis has shown himself to be openly heretical on a point of major importance, teaching a pure and simple novelty” (Kwasniewski Aug 2, 2018).

The only question, according to sources such as these, is if Francis is a formal heretic (a heretic that is aware that what he is teaching is contrary to Catholic doctrine and yet remains pertinacious in his error despite rebuke) or only a material heretic:

“Whether Francis is a formal heretic — and proves pertinacious in maintaining his position in spite of rebuke— is a matter to be adjudicated by the College of Cardinals” (Kwasniewski Aug 2, 2018).

Either way, according to Kwasniewski and the editorial staff at Life Site that approved his blog, Pope Francis is a heretic that must be opposed:

“No doubt exists, however, that orthodox bishops of the Catholic Church must oppose this doctrinal error and refuse to use the altered edition of the Catechism or any catechetical materials based on it.”

Like the others,  Dr. Edward Feser (whom National Review cited as “one of the best contemporary writers on philosophy) does not make necessary and proper distinctions and then proceeds to make egregious mistakes followed by false accusations:

According to Dr. Feser.

“To say, as the pope does, that the death penalty conflicts with ‘the inviolability and dignity of the person’ insinuates that the practice is intrinsically contrary to natural law. And to say, as the pope does, that ‘the light of the Gospel’ rules out capital punishment insinuates that it is intrinsically contrary to Christian morality,

If they took time to carefully analyze the news, and to properly understand the terms employed, the detractors might get it right.  As it is, they consistently get it wrong – and with condemning arrogance. As such, they might be surprised to learn that Pope Francis, like his predecessors, never stated that capital punishment is intrinsically evil nor has he contradicted his predecessors as they falsely claim.  The detractors seem more interested in fighting with a papal straw man (that they can easily knock down in front of an audience of indiscreet admirers) than they do with ascertaining the truth. If they actually possess the intellectual tools needed to critique a pope, they should be able to clarify what the pope actually said; something  they consistently seem unable to do.

Gentlemen, the pope never said that the death penalty is “intrinsically evil”; please stop misrepresenting him.


What Exactly did the Pope Say?

According to the Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, “The Supreme Pontiff Francis, in the audience granted on 11 May 2018 to the undersigned Prefect… has approved the following new draft of no. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, arranging for it to be translated into various languages and inserted in all the editions of the aforementioned Catechism.”

Regarding the Death Penalty, para 2267 of the New Catechism should be amended to read:

Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.


Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.


Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide” (Papal Rescript “Ex Audienta  SS.MI).

Flexing his intellectual muscle, Professor Robert de Mattei President of Lepanto Institute stated that, “The lawfulness of the death penalty is a truth de fide tenenda defined by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church, in a constant and unequivocal manner.”  Then, after striking a side-chest pose, he implies that Pope Francis is a heretic:

“Whoever affirms that capital punishment is in itself an evil, falls into heresy (Remnant News).”

To defend his damning claim, he quotes Pope Innocent III (Innocent III, DS 795/425):

“The teaching of the Church was clearly expressed in a letter dated December 18, 1208, in which Innocent III condemned the Waldensian position with these words, reported by Denzinger:


‘With regard to the secular power, we affirm that it can exercise a judgment of blood without mortal sin, provided that in carrying out the punishment it proceeds, not out of hatred, but judiciously, not in a precipitous manner, but with caution.’” (Enchiridion symbolorum,definitionum et declaratium de rebus fidei et morum, edited by Peter Hünermann S.J., n. 795).

It is surprising that an esteemed doctor of philosophy could make such a sophomoric mistake, surprising that he could fail to note the fundamental distinction between the Natural Law and the Divine Law and the fact that Francis was not speaking to leaders of the state but to faithful Catholics.  The Pope made it very clear that he was NOT speaking within the context of the Natural Law but within the context of Divine Law, (in the context of the GOSPEL). The Gospel is the GOOD NEWS of salvation, the GOOD NEWS  of MERCY not of judgement.  In the context of Gospel Love and Mercy, sinners are forgiven.


Pope Innocent was clearly speaking about the authority of the state as derived from the Natural Law as is clear from the use  of the words “judgement” and  “blood”.  Those however who fall under the Divine Law of Love are not judged, instead they plead for mercy and avoid judgment, avoid the bloody sword of justice and death:

“For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. For God sent NOT his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. He that believeth in him is NOT judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God(John 3: 16-18)

Natural Law follows the dictates of natural reason culminating in human wisdom and acts of natural justice; Divine Law exceeds the dictates of human reason and is guided by the dictates of supernatural reason culminating in Divine Wisdom perfected by acts of Divine Love. The former is bequeathed by the gift of FAITH in Jesus the WORD of God and in His GOSPEL; the latter in the gift of the Holy Spirit conferred in Baptism and Confirmation. Wisdom (human or Divine) is an intellectual virtue that is not perfected until it reaches its end (unity of lover and beloved) in ACTS of Love.

“For my thoughts (INTELLECT) are not your thoughts: nor your ways (ACTS) my ways, saith the Lord” (Isaiah 55:8).

Dr. Feser, quoted above, makes a similar mistake. He stated that Pope Francis “insinuates that the practice (the death penalty) is intrinsically contrary to natural law.” Obviously, the death penalty is NOT contrary to Natural Law (it is not even contrary to the Divine Old Law) but it is contrary to the Gospel of Mercy as Pope Francis correctly teaches. Feser is simply fighting a “straw man” of his own making!

Next, he fails to recognize that the Gospel does in deed rule out the death penalty:

“To say, as the pope does, that ‘the light of the Gospel’ rules out capital punishment insinuates that it is intrinsically contrary to Christian morality,”

Mr. Fesser, Christian morality is rooted in the GOSPEL.  Natural morality though it leads to Christian morality is not the same thing. It is the morality discovered by unaided natural reason known even to the PAGANS (Aristotle) – it is not specifically Christian.  It might be proto-Christian, but it is NOT Christian per-se, in itself, that is substantially. It is merely a human standard, not the Divine standard rooted in Love (1 John 4: 7-8).

At least Mr. Fesser is a reputable philosopher, Life Site consists mainly of untrained laymen most of whom are not even competent to be in the discussion. Thus, Life Site reported that this amendment of the Catechism is “bold” and “reckless” move and that Francis’ pontificate is “out of control.”

“In the boldest and most reckless move to date in a pontificate that was already out of control and sowing confusion on a massive scale, the Vatican has announced Pope Francis’s substitution, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, of a new doctrine on capital punishment.”

It should be clear who is “reckless” and “out of control.” Francis has not altered the fact that under the Natural Law, the state retains the intrinsic power and authority to impose the death penalty.  As Vicar of Christ, however, he is pointing them to the Gospel and asking, that in its context, heads of state show mercy by not admitting the death penalty into their tribunals. If they fail to do so, judges and heads of state can still impose the death penalty without incurring moral guilt, if they do so correctly; that is, within the confines of natural justice as was always the case. However, by continuing the practice of imposing the death penalty, heads of state are reducing their judgements to the lower moral standard of natural justice.  The pope is appealing for them to raise their hearts and eyes to the realities of the higher GOSPEL STANDARD of Divine Mercy, which is at the heart of his pontificate.

In short, the pope is not a schoolboy to be spanked by a group of neophyte philosophers.  Francis is a well seasoned priest, a man who both knows the principles and has the experience necessary to apply them correctly in widely varying circumstances and in an environment such as the present one, an especial time of supernatural grace in which the King of Kings has pronounced His desire for an Hour of Mercy, an Hour of Mercy before the dread hour of vindictive justice from which no man can escape.  Just about everything that Francis speaks of must be interpreted within the context of Mercy.

“Today I am sending you with My mercy to the people of the whole world. I do not want to punish aching mankind, but I desire to heal it, pressing it to My merciful Heart. I use punishment when they themselves force me to do so; My hand is reluctant to take hold of the sword of justice. Before the Day of Justice, I am sending the Day of Mercy. … I am prolonging the time of mercy for the sake of [sinners].” (Jesus’ message to Saint Faustina; Diary, 1588 and 1160).

Because he is presenting the death penalty in the context of mercy, he is easily misunderstood by those who fail to recognize the context. Thus, Pope Francis never stated that the death penalty is “intrinsically evil” nor did he ever say that it is morally ILLICIT.  What Pope Francis did say is that the death penalty is “INADMISSIBLE.”  When something is inadmissible it implies that it can also at times be admissible. Inadmissible is a procedural not a substantive term – inadmissible is a legal term dealing with procedures that govern evidence, trial protocol, and sentencing etcetera. That is, it has to do with correct procedures employed in a criminal or civil case not with the substantive moral facts of the case. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, inadmissible refers to:

“That which, under the established rules of law, cannot be admitted or received: e. g., parol evidence to contradict a written contract.”

When the pope teaches that the death penalty is inadmissible, a reasonable person might be expected to ask: Where or when is it inadmisible.  The answer: In the Tribunal of Mercy (or in an Eclesial Court – the death penalty has always been inadmissible in Ecclesial Courts). The death penalty is certainly admissible in a Tribunal of Justice (a secular Criminal Court or the Court of the Eternal Judge) in which a person can be found guilty by a temporal judge and sentenced to death. or by the Eternal Judge and sentenced to hell, to what eschatological literature refers to as the “Second DEATH” (Rev. 20: 13-15).  However, the Second Death is not possible for any person judged in the Tribunal of Mercy. Such people will never taste death again! When a person refuses to avail himself of God’s Mercy, he places himself outside the Tribunal of Mercy and is handed over to death which is OUTSIDE the Kingdom of Heaven – Death is not admissible in Heaven.

“Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me…. Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt 25:34-41).

Instead of saying they were sorry, those sentenced to the Second Death in the above scripture, complained of their innocence.  Thus, instead of mercy and eternal life, they received justice and eternal death, the death penalty. Had they availed themselves of mercy they would have known life because the death penalty is inadmissible in the Tribunal of Mercy!

Detractors, please be very careful, those who clamor for the sword of justice, risk having the death penalty imposed upon themselves:

“JUDGE not, that you may not be judged, For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again” (Matt 7:1-2)

The only reason people are sentenced to the “Second Death” is their radical refusal to ask for forgiveness, the radical refusal to say, “sorry.” If they did so, they would find themselves forgiven and inheritors of eternal life. The Lord, Himself, does NOT ADMIT the death penalty into His Tribunal of Mercy – the death penalty is INADMISSIBLE!

Pope Francis is pleading with modern men and women to save their brothers and sisters from the Second Death and showing them how to avoid it themselves.  This is something that the Mother of God also taught at Fatima. She showed Jacinta, Francisco and Lucia a momentary vision of hell to inspire them to save souls from being sentenced to is endless caverns.

“You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in this world devotion to my Immaculate Heart.”

The death penalty is clearly “inadmissible” in a Tribunal of Mercy as Pope Francis correctly teaches.  However, the death penalty is not “intrinsically evil”, nor did Pope Francis ever say that it is.  The death penalty can surely be imposed in a Tribunal of Justice, which is exactly what those risk who clamor that sinners be subjected to justice and who falsely accuse the pope of being a wolf by misrepresenting his words.

It would be better for them to humbly admit their ignorance:

“Jesus said to them: If you were blind, you should not have sin: but now you say: We see(Therefore) Your sin remaineth” (John 9:41).


Italy's New Government Strongly Christian - Soros Accuses Putin of Collusion

Newera Global Intelligence Report:

ITALY HAS TAKEN A MAJOR STEP into the future. Governed by a new coalition of two populist parties (“Northern League” and “Five Star”) the beleaguered nation has taken its first major step away from liberalism and EU diktat toward national sovereignty. Following Austria in Central Europe and Poland and Hungary in Eastern Europe, Italy is the first Western European country to elect populist leaders committed to much needed systemic economic, political and cultural change. As such, it did not take long for liberal billionaire financier and philanthropist,George Soros to drum up the his brand of conspiracy theory invoked whenever Christians get elected – Putin did it:

“There is “a strong threat and I’m really worried” says Soros. “There is a close relationship between Matteo Salvini and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin… I do not know if Putin actually finances his party, but Italian public opinion has the right to know if Salvini is in Putin’s pay check.”

Emanuele Fiano, deputy of the ousted Democratic Party,  also weighed in on the debate, telling Radio Cusano Campus listeners that:

“Parliament should have some more certainty about the relations between the League, M5S and Russia.”

Matteo Salvini, head of the newly elected Northern League, strongly denied the allegations:

“I have never received a lira, a euro or a rouble from Russia,”  adding, “I am ashamed that a speculator like him is invited to speak” at the Trento Festival of Economics.”

Soros’ rhetoric is worn and increasingly ineffective; Italy’s problems will not be solved by giving time to his brand of dying liberalism . Italy stands in dire need of an alternative economic plan that could very well emerge throughout the Peninsula. Although the third largest economy in the European Union, and historically a major player in both European and world affairs, Italy is racked with overwhelming economic challenges effecting its current and future stability.  Italian debt is now the second highest in Europe after Greece – it has reached 132% of GDP.


Italy is suffering an economic crisis, a crisis  exacerbated by pressures from foreign powers who have successfully persuaded Italian leaders to curtail trade with Russia, a move supported by the government of Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. To compound its trade and debt problems, unemployment has skyrocketed in some areas (primarily in the south) to nearly 30%.


Economic facts such as these help account for the resignation of Prime Minister Renzi  (December 2016) following a Renzi sponsored referendum to reduce the powers of the Senate thereby increasing those of his left-leaning Democratic government by making it easier to enact legislation through the lower Chamber of Deputies without having to face resistance from the various regions represented in the Senate. Italian voters soundly rejected the proposal and then threw their votes to Italy’s two new populist parties, Five Star (M5S) and Lega Nord (Northern League), which emerged as Italy’s two most influential parties following the country’s general election in March, 2018.

Despite their success, neither Lega Nord nor M5S were large enough to form a majority and thus had to look for coalition partners. The Five Star Movement refused to form a coalition with any of its its rivals, but acknowledged that if forced to, it would partner up with the Northern League. Eventually forced, the two combined having well over the 40% threshold needed to govern.

Election Results:

  • Five Star Movement 32.22
  • Democratic Party 18.9
  • Lega 17.69 (Lega was part of the Right-Centre Coalition” [Forza Italia, Fratelli, and Lega Nord] that garnered 37% of the vote)
  • Forza Italia 13.94
  • Fratelli d’Italia 4.35
  • Free and Equal 3.38

Northern League garnered 124 seats in the Chamber of Deputies (lower house) out of a total of 630 and 58 in the Senate out of a total of 315.


M5S attained 227 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 112 in the Senate.

Together they have

  • 351 seats in the Chamber out of 630 and
  • 170 seats in the Senate out of 315

Most pundits ruled out or fretted a Five Star-Northern League alliance.  According to the UK Business Insider, such a coalition would be “worst case scenario for markets.” Likewise,  BBC Europe Editor Katya Adler said such an alliance would be the “EU’s nightmare result to come true.”  According to the Guardian,

Many analysts believed the left-wing of M5S would revolt were there a hookup with the League.”

However, if a coalition had not be formed, Italians would have been forced to vote all over again, in which case both the League and M5S would risk not repeating at the polls. Short of that, there were two options: (1) Form a broad “grand coalition”  of cross spectrum parties or (2) Form a “Euro-skeptic anti-establishment alliance.” Surprisingly, Northern League and Five Star chose the latter option.

League Leader Matteo Salvini approached M5S leader Luigi Di Maio with a deal: Northern League would form a coalition with M5S if League ally Forza Italia, headed by ex-premier Silvio Berlusconi was part of the ruling coalition.

“Di Maio refused the deal, saying Salvini was “choosing restoration instead of revolution” because “Berlusconi represents the past.” He added that his movement was “not interested in remaining stuck or in looking to the past, we want to look to the future.”

To drive the point further, Alessandro Di Battista, a prominent Five Star member, staunchly opposed any alliance with Forza Italia, describing Berlusconi as the “pure evil of our country.

Finally, on May 13, Feast of Our Lady of Fatima, the two reached a surprising agreement to form a coalition government drafting a contract in which they refer to themselves as “the government of change” (Contratto per il governo del cambiamento).

Who is the Northern League or Lega Nord

Lega Nord represents the underdog that no one took seriously.  According to Politico:

“When Matteo Salvini took over the leadership of the Northern League at the end of 2013, Italian politicians and the media said his job would be to officiate at the party’s funeral. Two years later, it is back from the near dead — and stronger than ever.”

The party’s complete name is Lega Nord per l’Indipendenza della Padania (Northern League for the Independence of Padania). Born as a regional party in wealthy northern Italy, Lega Nord initially campaigned for independence from the poorer south. However, once Salvini assumed the helm, Lega softened its aspirations to succeed from Italy to that of more local or regional autonomy. Realizing the possibility of becoming a national party, it was re branded as Lega or simply League for the 2018 elections during which it focused heavily on the Islamic refugee crisis, the negative effects of the Euro and of continued membership in the European Union. According to Reuters,

“The Northern League…would aim to pull Italy out of the European Union if Brussels refused to re-negotiate fiscal and immigration rules.”

Allied with other European populist parties in the European Parliament, such as Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France, Northern League advocates resumed trade with Russia and returning to EU’s status before the 1992 signing of the Maastricht Treaty (which laid the foundations for a single currency) thereby signaling a move away from the Euro.

In this regard, Salvini recently hosted a Milan Conference for a new group in the European Parliament known as Europe of Nations and Freedom Group (ENF), which includes Marine Le Pen and other Euroskeptic party leaders from throughout the continent. ENF is working to establish a “Europe of free nations in which power is fully returned from the European Union to the voters of sovereign states. The group’s commitments are to sovereignty, democracy, freedom and ending mass immigration so that members may advance their own interests at the domestic level. Along these lines, the League, promotes Italy’s cultural values, supports the traditional family, is opposed to same sex union, globalism, and the spread of liberalism.

In the words of Marine le Pen VP of ENF:

“Each day, the Europe of Brussels unveils its fatal design: deconstructing nations to build a new globalist order, dangerous for the security, prosperity, identity, the very survival of the European peoples.”


“Faced with the proponents of federalism, we are the guardians informed of the national spirit and the defenders of the interests of European peoples.”


“An opposing force that embodies the patriotic alternative to the globalist Europe, Brussels…”


“This pole of resistance, which today unites the elect of eight European nations, pursues a compelling purpose: to free Europe from the chains of servitude…and build a continent of peace and prosperity.”

At the close of the Milan meeting of ENF, Salvini had a photo taken with Le Pen and others containing the caption:

“We will not surrender to the clandestine invasion.”

Whether it was the refugee crisis, the Marine Le Pen bandwagon or what party insiders prefer to call the “Salvini Effect”, the party that sank to an historic low of 4 percent in the 2013 election is now part of the ruling coalition leading Italy into the future.

Following the 2018 elections Salvini exclaimed:

“It’s a fantastic victory which fills us with pride.” He claimed Italian voters had “made a step forward to be free from the cages and ties that are bringing back hunger and insecurity in Europe”.

Who is Five Star


Five Star is a “populist, anti-establishment, anti-globalist, increasingly popular” movement in Italy. The party was established by an Italian comedian, Beppe Grillo and web strategist Gianroberto Casaleggio in 2009.  It is named Five Stars because it coalesces around five primary issues:

  1. Transportation
  2. Water (Green technology – anti-pollution – environmentalism)
  3. Development (social justice oriented – the common good) it is anti-capitalist and anti-consumerist
  4. Internet Access
  5. Non-violence

Five Star is in favor of direct digital democracy (direct participation of all citizens in public affairs by use of computer technology). It rejects foreign military intervention in the Middle East and specifically American intervention in Syria. It also proposes “drastic” cuts to corporate taxes, slashing red tape by abolishing 400 “useless” laws and guaranteeing a minimum income of up to 780 euros for the poor.

It opposes

  1. Extreme concentrations of wealth
  2. Neoliberalism

As such, M5S favors limited but sustainable growth, reduced production and consumption, promotion of the arts and more humane use of leisure time.

Five Star might be populist, peace minded and social justice oriented, but it is also a left wing movement committed to an aberrant moral agenda and therefore has the backing of the liberal members of the EU whose Constitution  “stipulates that countries draw inspiration from Europe’s cultural, religious and (liberal) humanist heritage.”

Realizing the rise of populist parties throughout Europe, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) had a choice in Italy: Back Northern League, back Five Star or bash both.  BBC pinned its hopes on Five Star  thereby presenting the movement as another populist party like those coming to the fore throughout Europe. Although Five Star has an innovative political and economic reform package, morally Five Star appears to be just another appendage of British liberalism. In 2014 the party voted for gay rights and same sex unions. They also support euthanasia and artificial insemination


That was 2014, during the 2018 elections, Five Star back peddled on the issue.  According to the Guardian:

“After seemingly supporting the legislation for months, Beppe Grillo, the former comic who heads the protest party (Five Star), announced that members of his party could vote their conscience on the bill (advocating same sex unions).”


“It was a reflection, analysts said, of the changing political landscape in Italy. The country’s conservative and right-wing parties are largely in disarray and Grillo likely sees an opportunity to pick up conservative voters in upcoming local elections if he can scupper or weaken the civil unions bill.”


“They are also opportunistic. There is an opportunity to grab votes from centre-right parties, which at this point cannot even put forward candidates in key cities,” said Wolfango Piccoli, an analyst at Teneo Intelligence in London.”

The “opportunistic shift,” politically motivated as it might be, might forebode good things to come as the two coalition partners make accommodations for each other. The League is, by definition, Conservative. It has a traditional Christian moral agenda and gives signs of being under the influence of old conservative economic policies such as those represented by Silvio Berlusconi whom M5S leader Luigi Di Maio rejected as an artifact that “represents the past.” M5S, he said, is “not interested in remaining stuck or in looking to the past, we want to look to the future.” Berlusconi, according to another M5S stalwart represents the “pure evil of our country.

Both parties are populist, anti-globalist and are skeptical of the EU.  In addition, “both parties are actively declaring that they are in favor of rapprochement with Moscow and the abolition of anti-Russian sanctions. The leader of the “League” Matteo Salvini has repeatedly visited Moscow, where he met with Vladimir Putin, State Duma deputies and journalists.”

This might be enough “new thinking” to hold them together.  Quite simply, they need each other in the struggle against more powerful globalist forces.


Will this Coalition Work?

On the surface Five Star and the League appear to be a good fit; however, on closer examination, the fit does not appear so good. On third look, however, the match might be made in Heaven. Although both the League and Five Star oppose immigration (see note below), globalism, European dictates and approve of economic relations with Russia, they are deeply opposed on several, key moral issues. Nonetheless, both are percipient enough to realize that If one losses the support of the other, they are both losers.  Simply stated, they need each other –  They are the only two members in the coalition. Since they also have a common core to build upon, dialogue followed by compromise is expected.

Five Star is the more liberal of the two, their liberalism however includes economic ideas that have the support of the Catholic Church: opposition to deregulation, materialism and hedonistic capitalism, to wealth concentration, to excessive individualism and lack of social conscience for the “common good.”  Although often anathema to economic conservatives, the foregoing list contains morally sound attributes in tune with Christian individual-communal anthropology rooted in the Holy Trinity favorable to moral conservatives.

The League is the more conservative of the two.  It is opposed to same-sex marriages, homosexuality etc. It also holds both economic and cultural paradigms opposed by Five Star. Something is going to have to give or there will be no cooperation and further dissolution – something Italy can no longer afford.

If the League is going to get along with its new coalition partner, it is going to have to learn some new economic thinking. M5S is definitely liberal by conservative eyes.  It promotes homosexuality, stands for social justice, fair distribution, serving the common good etc. Although social and distributive justice have long been associated with socialism or communism, with hippies on the left etc., they are in actuality moral issues advocated by the Catholic Church, which  is certainly not liberal.  In the light of Italy’s failing economy, the League might be persuaded to at least quasi accept Five Star’s economic platform – this task can be made easier if League leaders can be persuaded that they are not communist or socialist ideas per se –  in fact, they are plain old Christian.  If League leaders can grasp this, it becomes perhaps the key for compromise.  The League can adopt innovative forward looking economic proposals and remain true to its Christian values at the same time. This compromise is based on the League moving first; something which should be much easier for them since they are both the minority in the coalition and able to maintain their Christian stance while moving in the direction of Five Star’s economic proposals.

Leaving the European Union or attaining more sovereignty while remaining in the EU will not be enough to solve Italy’s problems. The problem is more deeply rooted than the euro; there is no simple way out of the euro. “An extreme crisis in Italy would most likely result not in euro exit but a debt restructuring. And the costs of that wouldn’t fall on the European Central Bank, as the coalition partners fondly imagine. They would fall on the Italian savers and pensioners—and, yes, voters—who hold 70% of the country’s debt” (Wall Street Journal).

Realizing this, Five Star has “steadily rowed back on an early plan to hold a referendum on whether Italy should leave the common currency zone, and this month its new, moderate leader Luigi Di Maio said it was no longer a party policy” (Reuters).

The problem is not the euro, it is systemic. Five Star has the stronger moral hand economically. The old model of usurious finance, unrestricted concentration of wealth, mass consumer society, speculation that benefits a few to the detriment of the common good are all associated with economic liberalism, which Five Star wants to modify, regulate or abandon.

The League might be willing to give some slack in this domain, if M5S softened its objectionable moral agenda and becomes more amenable to traditional family values. If Five Star expects compromise from the League it too will have to compromise; family morality seems the likely choice.  Five Star might be loathe to so compromise, but the future of Italy, and of their remaining in power, depends upon it. In return Five Star gets their way on Russia and agreement about EU diktat; they also gain support for their economic program and predictable clash with the financial establishment; all they have to do is compromise on family values. The League also gets their way on Russia, agreement about EU diktat and their cherished family and traditional values; all they have to do is compromise on the economy – something discussion with Pope Francis and the Italian episcopate can speed along.

Cardinal Parolin, Secretary of State for the Vatican, summed up the situation well: the Holy See, he said, would continue its “work of education”



The pope hasn’t retracted any Catholic doctrine, but he expects mercy and compassion, respect, and welcome.  When it comes to homosexuality, his response: “Who am I to judge?”  When it comes to immigration both Francis and Salvini might have to compromise – there seems to be ample room. Salvini is strongest anti-immigrant voice in Italy. He crossed Francis by leading the charge against the ius solis  (right of the soils) or birthright citizenship meaning anyone born on the soil or territory of a state has the right of citizenship. On this point, Francis seems to hold the stronger hand, without it children could be separated from parents.  On the broader question, Salvini seems to hold the stronger hand.  Not everyone is admissible; even the Jews knew that: Relations with people who had been hostile, such as the Ammonites and Moabites, Aquinas  says (First Part of Second Part Q 105)

“Were never to be admitted to citizenship; while the Amalekites, who were yet more hostile to them, and had no fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes in perpetuity: for it is written (Ex. 17:16): “The war of the Lord shall be against Amalec from generation to generation.”





Korea Blest as Pope Francis Sends Marian Group on Urgent Worldwide Peace Mission

New Era World News and Global Intelligence

THIS YEAR THE CHURCH IS CELEBRATING the centenary of the appearance of the Mother of God at Fatima, Portugal in 1917. Since that time Fatima has become the world’s most prominent center of Marian devotion, a place that John Paul II referred to as the “Marian capital of the world.”  Our Lady of Fatima precisely foretold the outbreak of World War II, the rise of Communism, the persecution of the Church and the world-wide spread of Communism before the Bolshevik Revolution ever occured, Her other prophecies concerning the conversion of Russia to be correlated with a promised “Era of Peace” are of especial importance since, unlike the former that have already occurred, these prophesied events are in the process of occurring.  Any impartial observer of global events can discern the Hand of God at work in the world as Russia is being converted and the nations of the world are one by one in the process of rejecting global liberalism while many are reasserting their Christian identities (Eastern EuropeAfricaPoland, Hungary, Slovakia France, AustriaAsiaArgentinaMiddle East).

As stated, the universal church is in the midst of celebrating the 100th Anniversary of Our Lady’s appearance at Fatima. Perhaps one of the most astounding events of the the centenary is the reconciliation of North and South Korea following a visit of a pilgrim statue of Our Lady of Fatima to the Korean demilitarized zone. Although not reported by any of the mainstream media, on January 11, 2017 Pope Francis conducted a ceremonial blessing of six statues of Our Lady of Fatima to be sent on a world-wide mission of Peace and Reparation to the six populated continents of the world. During the blessing of these pilgrim statues, Pope Francis also renewed his declaration that the Centenary of Fatima be a Jubilee Year, with plenary indulgences available under the normal conditions for those who participate in memorial celebrations, including pilgrimages, public veneration and rosary prayers before any image of Our Lady of Fatima and also for the infirm and elderly who unite their suffering and prayers to those of Jesus (Colossians 1:24).

This video is an essential watch during this 100th Anniversary of Fatima:



Broiling Problems in Korean Conflict

According to Professor Americo Lopez Ortiz, International President of the World Apostolate of Fatima,

“The Message of Fatima has it all: The doctrinal richness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ; its freshness, images, gestures of the primitive Christian catechesis; the calls to penance from Saint John the Baptist, preparing the way for the Redeemer; the strong eschatological accents of Christ before the ruins of Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44); the didactic force of Jesus’ parables; the simple life of the villagers, their emotional gestures and learned prayers; the prophetic contents of the Book of Revelation with the confrontation between “the Woman clothed with the sun… and the red dragon”; as well as God’s seal with the Miracle of the Sun October 13, 1917 (video 5:32) and the profound spiritual peace found in that holy place where heaven and earth meet for the welfare of humanity.”

Our Lady of Fatima also promised the conversion of Russia and an Era of Peace:

“In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”

The conversion of Russia and the promised Era of Peace are contingent upon two things:

  1. The faithful performance of First Saturday Devotion (see note below), which has called the “hidden part of the Message of Fatima” and
  2. The Papal Consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart, which was accomplished by Pope John Paul II on March 25, 1984.

Following the 1984 papal consecration, as promised, Communism was toppled, the Solidarity movement gained momentum in Poland, the Berlin wall came down and one after another the nations behind the “Iron Curtain” were given political and then religious freedom – Russia is being converted as Our Lady of Fatima promised.

Communism, however, continues to influence North Korea. Its influence was manifest in 1950 when Communist Soviet and Chinese leaders supported North Korea’s invasion of South Korea. Within two years, United States led UN forces suffered horrendous casualties: 93,000 prisoners of war, 118,000 dead and another 265,000 wounded; by the time UN troops withdrew, over 3,000,000 men had died on the battlefield. After the fighting ceased, Korea became a pivotal state in the global cold-war fought between the United States and the Soviet Union (USSR). Americans lined up behind South Korea while North Korea became a proxy of the USSR.

The cold-war conflict in the Korean peninsula has been exacerbated by another little recognized fact:  The war never officially ended; a final peace treaty has never been achieved.  Instead, facilitated by the United Nations,  North Korea and South Korea agreed to an armistice, which was signed by representatives of the three parties on July 27, 1953. Since that time, the US has maintained a significant troop presence and, along with South Korea, has manned what has become known as the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).  The DMZ is a 2.5 miles wide and 160 miles long area that divides the Korean Peninsula in half.  Although referred to as a demilitarized zone, a large contingent of troops are amassed along each side of the line within 2.5 miles of each other. The conflicting zones are surrounded by barbed wires, fortified by walls and protected by mines.

From its inception until the year 2000, over 50 US soldiers, 500 South Korean soldiers, and 250 soldiers from North Korea have been killed along the DMZ. Both sides have violated the territorial integrity of the other: South Korea has discovered four tunnels crossing the DMZ that have been dug by North Korea. In 1976, William Clements, the US Deputy Secretary of Defense reported to US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, that South Korea had conducted 200 raids into North Korea from the South.

As stated above, the war between North and South Korea never formally ended. Instead, it has been the front of a Cold War that is recently growing hot. In September, 2017, North Korea launched a ballistic missile over northern Japan thereby triggering a widespread emergency alert across that island nation. Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the United Nations, then warned North Korea to relinquish its nuclear weapons programmes, emphasizing that the regime faces “destruction” if it continues its threatening behaviour and forces the US to defend its allies.

“If North Korea keeps on with this reckless behavior, if the United States has to defend itself or defend its allies in any way, North Korea will be destroyed” (Washington Post).

President Trump then referred to North Korean President Kim Jong Un as “Rocket Man“. The President of North Korea, however, could not humble himself to be upstaged; Kin Jong fired back:

“Action is the best option in treating the dotard who, hard of hearing, is uttering only what he wants to say” (BBC News).

He ended his analysis of President Trump and summarized his intentions toward him:

“I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged US dotard with fire.”

The 100th Anniversary of Our Lady’s appearance at Fatima is also the 50th Golden Jubilee of the World Apostolate of Fatima’s appearance in Korea. Korea is among the fastest growing Catholic nations in the world. It is a land soaked with the blood of Catholic martyrs, over 8,000 along with 103 saints whom Pope John Paul II canonized in 1984.  Thirty years later, before a throng of 800,000 Koreans, Pope Francis beatified 123 more. Korea thus exalts in having the fourth largest number of saints of any country in the world.  Because the martyrs are also viewed as patriots liberating Korea from injustice, Francis beatified them on Korea’s National Holiday celebrating its liberation.

Three years following his pastoral visit to Korea, Pope Francis commissioned one of the six Fatima statues he blest for the Fatima Centenary to tour Asia. The statue began its Asian journey in January by traveling to Hong Kong; it then proceeded to Taiwan, Indonesia and the Philippines.  It arrived  in Korea on May 17, 2017. Our Lady was greeted by an enthusiastic crowd at the Jesuit Sogang University. Then on June 5, after touring the country, she proceeded to the Demilitarized Zone.  Rather that write about the events, I prefer and request that you watch the embedded video.  Please do not stop at the 4:00 mark but continue to the end.

Leaders of North and South Korea Proclaim They are Ushering in an “Era of Peace” (5:56 in Video):




Korea Today

Today, roughly one third of Korea is Christian. The Catholic church is booming. Between 1997 and 2007, it increased its membership by a phenomenal 70%.

“‘Over the past ten years, the Catholic Church in Korea has gone from three to five million faithful’. Cardinal Nicholas Cheong Jin-suk, archbishop of Seoul, has said in an interview. The Catholic Church in South Korea is the one that is growing most vigorously in Asia.”

But, according to the New York Times, “Not everyone in South Korea welcomed the pope” or is happy about the exponential growth of the Catholic Church:

“And it is not Buddhists or Confucians  (the country’s two major non-Christian religious groups) who publicly expressed unhappiness with his visit, but members of Protestant groups who fear Catholic encroachment in a country where Christians make up 29 percent of the population.”

A  fundamentalist pastor named Rev. Song Choon-gil,  could not restrain his dispensational and apocalyptic anti-Catholicism:

“The enemy king has appeared at the center of our nation!”, (he) shouted during a rally of hundreds of Protestants who gathered a few blocks from the papal Mass on Saturday. Accompanied by a band, the evangelical Protestants sang hymns and danced, shouting that they were sounding “the trumpets of spiritual war” against the “idol worship” and “satanic forces” they said Roman Catholicism represents” (New York Times).

In addition to, and perhaps related to, these troubles, Jeong Se Hyun, South Korea’s unification minister from 2002 to 2004 and a former envoy to North Korea stated that:

“In order for the peace treaty (signed by the two Korean leaders) to be an effective safeguard that can prevent U.S. military action against North Korea, there needs to be more than a two-party deal….China needs to be a signatory, in addition to the United States, South Korea, and North Korea,”

Peace is a very real possibility, but will the Neocon warhawks in the Trump administration, the deep-state bureaucrats and pro-Zionist Christian Fundamentalists (the vocal core of Trump’s Christian supporters) support a Peace Treaty that is intended to initiate a “New Era of Peace“?

Our Lord and Our Lady want peace, but dispensational fundamentalist preachers in Korea (as throughout Latin America), along with the warmongers of the world, are intent to spread their rapidly fading tide of neoliberalism. They want to hold onto their solipsistic money machine.  They seem to prefer the Gospel of Prosperity to the Gospel of Jesus Christ who commanded his followers to love all men and to lay down their lives for each other; they seem to forget or ignore the fact that Jesus was born into poverty and died naked on the Cross, and that He preached that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (Mark 10:25). Francis, who has criticized capitalism and alluded to it as the “dung of the devil,” is clearly not to their liking. Speaking in Bolivia, the pontiff said:

“There is the stench of what Basil of Caesarea called ‘the dung of the devil’. An unfettered pursuit of money rules. The service of the common good is left behind. Once capital becomes an idol and guides people’s decisions, once greed for money presides over the entire socioeconomic system, it ruins society, it condemns and enslaves men and women, it destroys human fraternity, it sets people against one another and, as we clearly see, it even puts at risk our common home.”

Francis might not be the friend of neoliberalism and warmongers who support it, but the important thing is that he is the friend of Jesus and His mother, the Virgin Mary.

As indicated in article after article during this 100th Year anniversary of Fatima: Liberalism is failing. First challenged in Eastern Europe, the challenge is spreading to Western Europe and rapidly taking root in Africa and Latin America as well.  The peace process has now reached the Christian blood-stained Korean Peninsula. However, just last week, National Security Advisor Robert Bolton in an interview with FOX News, stated that the US has not made any commitment to remove its military presence from the Korean peninsula.

“There’s nobody in the Trump administration who’s starry-eyed about what’s happening here (in Korea).”

Men and women who want peace are anathema to those who want war.  Being anathema, the warmongers can’t stand looking at the peace advocates, especially if they carry a rosary. If so, they certainly have disdain for the Mother of God, the “Queen of Peace” who has been decreed by the Holy Trinity to bring and an end to war, to usher in an Era of Peace and triumph over the world’s greatest warmonger:

“And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and the beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.”


“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel” (Genesis 3:15).

The enmity between Satan and the Woman was decreed at the beginning of time (Genesis). It is to be fulfilled at the end:

“A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Revelation 12:1).

NSA Bolton does not see any stars in Korea – “no one” he says, “is starry-eyed about what’s happening” in Korea. Neoliberal warhawks are apparently not looking in the Virgin Mary’s direction. The stars that grace her crown are not hard to miss.

North Korea and South Korea’s Nine-Point Reconciliation Plan:

  • Declaring the Korean War over
  • Setting denuclearization as a common goal
  • Hosting President Moon in North Korea’s capital by year’s end
  • Ending hostilities on land, air and water
  • Stopping propaganda broadcasts
  • Establishing a joint liaison office
  • Holding reunions of families separated by the Korean War in August
  • Reconnecting an inter-Korean railroad; and
  • Participating in the 2018 Asian Games together




“The First Saturday’s Devotion in reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is a devotional practice that includes sacramental reception of Confession (at least one per month), Holy Communion on Five Consecutive First Saturdays of the month; meditation of the Holy Rosary, including 15 minutes reflecting on its Mysteries, to accompany Mother Mary in her solitude, with the intention of reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”

“The Apparitions began on December 10, 1925 while Sister Lucia was at the Dorothean Convent in Pontevedra. Our Lady of Fatima in the company of the Sacred Heart of Infant Jesus appeared to her while the Child Jesus said to Lucia: “Have compassion on the Heart of your most holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment, and there is no one to make an act of reparation to remove them.”  

“Then, the Most Holy Virgin said: “Look, my daughter, at my Heart, surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce me at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You at least try to console me and say that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess, receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to me”  (Quoted from Americo Lopez Ortiz).

OPCW Completes Inspection in Syria Beginning to Look More Like Fake News

FOLLOWING THE ALLEGED APRIL 7 chemical attack laid at the feet of Syrian President Bashar al Assad, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW – an independent international organization that works in conjunction with the UN but is governed by its own Executive Council.) sent a team to Syria to investigate the allegations. However, before they could conduct their investigation, the combined forces of the United Kingdom, France and the United States launched an April 14  missile attack on Syria.

After the attack, the OPCW team was delayed from initiating their investigation.  Liberal media outlets accused Russia of being behind the delay’s.  Their motive, according to media sources was time needed to clean up the chemicals left behind, the residue of Assad’s alleged attack.

This scenario, while interesting and highly provocative, does not make much sense, especially when it is realized that it was the Russians who asked for the original investigation launched by the OPCW. On April 10, following the allegations of a chemical attack by Assad and prior to the missile attack by the US,  Vassily Nebenzia, Russian Ambassador to the UN issued a draft resolution at the UN calling for a special mission to investigate the allegations. In the resolution, it is stated that:

“OPCW experts had conducted a field mission.  On 10 April, when his country’s draft resolution (Russia’s) on the OPCW special mission had been blocked, he (the Russian Ambassador) had been assured that such a document had not been needed, and that the (OPCW)  mission would visit and investigate the sites.  However, the 13 April aggression (US missile attack)  had laid bare that that was not the issue (missiles were launched before the mission commenced)….’This is how you want international affairs to be conducted,’ he asked.  ‘This (he said) is hooliganism’ from major nuclear powers” (United Nations Official Documents).

The Russian ambassador was referring to the fact that an internationally recognized team was already on the ground and in place ready to investigate the alleged chemical attack, but before they could investigate, The United States, France and Great Britain launched their missile attack thereby impeding the investigation, which might have turned up nothing, thereby exonerating Assad, had it been permitted to investigate.

Similarly, the Syrian Ambassador to the UN stated that his country had:

“…officially invited OPCW to send its fact-finding mission to investigate alleged chemical weapons use.  Syria welcomed that visit and stood ready to cooperate fully, and it looked forward to the fact-finding mission conducting its work with transparency and professionalism while relying on evidence.  The fact-finding mission would get full access to a liberated Douma” (United Nations Press Releases – April 10, 2018).

The US launched the airstrike on April 14, but on April 9th the Russian delegate to the UN was (as stated above) pleading for an independent investigation to be conducted by the OPCW going so far as to assure that Russian soldiers would protect the OPCW team and facilitate the mission:

The Russian envoy called for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) investigative team to conduct a thorough inquiry surrounding the allegations of chemical weapon use, saying these teams could be escorted by Russian and Syrian forces as soon as Tuesday” (April 10).

Ambassador Nebenzia iterated the fact that:

“The draft by his country had also reflected the Government of Syria’s invitation to the OPCW fact-finding mission in order to carry out is investigation in line with that organization’s standards” (UN Press Release).

UK Envoy to the UN, Karen Pierce, even expressed her interest in pursuing this course of action:

“I was very interested to hear the Russian offer that OPCW fact-finding mission could visit and would have the protection of Russian forces…. I believe that this is an offer worth pursuing but it would of course be necessary for the OPCW mission to have complete freedom of action and freedom of access.”

Most importantly, the OPCW itself announced the fact, that both Syria and Russia had called for an investigation after the allegations that Assad had deployed chemical weapons and before the US led missile strike:

“Today (April 10), the OPCW Technical Secretariat has requested the Syrian Arab Republic to make the necessary arrangements for such a deployment. This has coincided with a request from the Syrian Arab Republic and the Russian Federation to investigate the allegations of chemical weapons use in Douma. The team is preparing to deploy to Syria shortly” (OPCW Website).

In short, it is not likely that the Russians or the Syrians  impeded the post-missile strike investigation, they both desired a pre-missile strike investigation. it was the France, the UK and US that impeded the investigation by launching a large scale missile attack hours before it was to be conducted thereby making a pre-strike investigation impossible.

Here is a Concrete Example of Fake News “Cherry Picking” to Manufacture a False Story form Partial

The CBS news report cited in sentence two above is an example of fake news by means of partial truths.  Despite a full two page letter drafted by Ahmet Üzümcü, the Director General of the OPCW regarding its investigation, CBS reported only one sentence from the two page report, the only one that in any way supports their case:

“The Syrian and the Russian officials who participated in the preparatory meetings in Damascus have informed the FFM (Fact Finding Mission) Team that there were still pending security issues to be worked out before any deployment could take place.”

Focusing on this one sentence, CBS simultaneously disregarded the remaining letter that negates their illusory case.  The actual entire letter, reveals a quite different story. It contains sentences such as the following:

“On Tuesday 10 April, we (the OPCW) handed to the Syrian delegation a note verbale notifying them of our decision to deploy the FFM as early as possible, as well as the names of the team members for issuance of visas. On the same day, the Syrian delegation submitted to the Secretariat a note verbale requesting the FFM to be dispatched. We also received a letter from the Ambassador of the Russian Federation supporting the Syrian request. Following these communications which are circulated to the States Parties on 10 April, I received a letter from the Syrian Vice Foreign Minister expressing his government’s support for the deployment of the FFM” (OPCW Executive Council).


“An advance group of three experts from the FFM arrived in Beirut on Thursday (three days before the missile firings), while the remaining six members joined them on Friday. The full team received a security briefing from the UN Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) in Beirut on Friday. On Saturday the team proceeded to Damascus (hours before the missile attack), where they met with officials of the National Authority to work out a plan for the deployment.”

The fact is that both Russia and Syria were the initiators of the investigation, both favored and asked for it as well as made plans to facilitate it.  Three days prior to the missile attack the OPCW team was already in Lebanon (Beirut); on Saturday they were moved to the Syrian capital in Damascus from which they were to proceed to Douma pending final arrangements by the Syrian military.  Before final plans could be implemented, US-UK missiles rained over the city and province thereby directly affecting the ability of the OPCW to carry out the Russian-Syrian requested investigation of the alleged chemical site.

If the US, the British, French and Israeli intelligence communities were unaware of the OPCW presence on the ground in Syria and Jordan, it is a failure of gross proportions – the whole reason of the OPCW’s existence is to investigate chemical sites. Or did they know the OPCW team was on the ground undertaking an active investigation, and that is precisely the reason they bombed Syria – that is, to interrupt the investigation? If so, this is tampering of ultimate proportion.

Moreover, the tweet employed by CBS to distort the news and chastise Russia and Syria is merely an irrelevant tweet, an unidentrified opinion emanating from the Official Twitter account of the  Delegation of the OCDF,  a delegation that stands in opposition to Russia and Syria. In short, it is a nonsense tweet from an unidentified source from a highly biased UK delegation, a delegation of a nation engaged in war with Syria.



Regardless of the above situation, over two weeks have passed since the missile attacks; finally, OPCW inspectors have entered Douma and taken samples from the site of the alleged April 7 chemical attack. According to the OPCW itself,

“…samples collected will be transported to the OPCW Laboratory in Rijswijk and then dispatched for analysis to the OPCW’s designated labs” (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Website).

The findings will have to wait until analysis is completed, but anticipation is growing as the UK, France and US have all made claims that both the Syrians and Russians have “tampered” with the site and delayed the OPCW investigation.

The OPCW, however, has stated that the only obstacle to their post-missile investigation of Douma was the UNDSS. Moreover, experts are highly skeptical about the possibility of removing all chemical evidence from the site. That is, if chemicals were used, evidence will be found. According to Dr. Homer Venters, Director of Programs for Physicians for Human Rights, which investigated Halabja, Iraq, in 1992 (four years after a chemical weapons attack),  despite the passage of four years, samples still showed evidence of a chemical attack on Kurdish villages in Iraq. Therefore,

“It is unlikely”, he said, “that all traces of evidence could be removed” (in Syria or anywhere) NBC News.

In conclusion, no matter how much the news is twisted, an objective analysis reveals that Russia and Syria did not impede the investigation of Douma prior to the firing of missiles by the US cohort; rather, they asked for and facilitated that investigative mission.

Given the fact that both Russia and Syria asked for, and fully cooperated with, the UN investigation team prior to the missile attacks seems to negate any further allegations of tampering with the alleged crime scene.

It is more likely that the forces behind the missile attacks, attacks that occurred just prior to the planned on-site investigation, are the same forces that delayed efforts following the missile attacks.  First the Syrians are accused of using chemical weapons and then of delaying tactics employed to buy time necessary for the removal of evidence.  Unfortunately, they are being accused by the very forces that obviously

(1) ignored the UN plans for an investigation by firing over 100 missiles thereby
(2) obliterating the OPCW investigation, an investigation that would have been much different prior to the firing of missiles than after.

Yes, the whole thing is beginning to look a whole lot more like “fake news”.

Either Assad Must be the Dumbest Dictator on the Planet or Maybe He Didn’t Do It

THE WORLD IS PASSING THROUGH a unique time, a time characterized by a burgeoning global reaction against unipolar liberal hegemony exercised by a powerful international coterie in countries such as France, the United Kingdom and the United States. These three nations cooperated to launch a major missile attack against a beleaguered Syria using the pretext of war crimes allegedly perpetrated by Bashar al Assad who they have accused for the third time of employing chemical weapons against his own people.  Unfortunately (for the international coterie), many people are wising up; they prefer peace to ongoing war and threats of war. The tide is clearly turning, and Syria is the turning point. The international arena is significantly changing, but the globalists cannot humble themselves enough to accept the fact that their self-serving liberal hegemony is no longer palatable.

Astutely recognizing the mounting discontent, Donald Trump ran for office on a populist ticket touting a foreign policy consisting of attractive goals such as cessation of regime change, pulling troops out of the Middle East and Syria, reduction of NATO, rapprochement with Russia, non-interference in the affairs of sovereign nation states and, corollary with these goals, the reduction of US military bases around the globe.  However, due to internal pressures from Neoconservatives, warhawks in both parties, EU Globalists, deep-state bureaucrats, and Zionist lobbies such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), due to pressure from groups such as these,  the new president has been unable to advance his foreign policy objectives.  Recently, however, it appeared as if he might be taking control of the executive office. On March 29, 2018 he stated:

“We’re knocking the hell out of ISIS. We’ll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon. Let the other people take care of it now” (Politico).

Less than a week later (April 3), he was stressing the same theme:

“I want to get back, I want to rebuild our nation. It’s time. We were very successful against ISIS; we’ll be successful against anybody militarily, but sometimes it’s time to come back home. And we’re thinking about that very seriously” (NBC News).

During the time he was voicing these sentiments (sentiments he had professed during his presidential campaign), it was becoming increasingly clear that Russian and Iranian backed Syrian forces were also winning the war against the terrorists and that Bashar al Assad would be remaining in power.  This is an eventuality that is anathema to Zionist Israel, Neocon warhawks, deep-state bureaucrats and pro-Zionist Christian Fundamentalists, the vocal core of Trump’s Christian supporters. More importantly, it raises a vital question about Assad’s domestic support and his military and political capabilities, capabilities that have kept him in power despite a seven-year onslaught backed by the globalists.  If Trump gets his way, and the United States withdraws, Assad will remain in power, Iran will be on Israel’s borders and Russia will be emboldened.  In short, the Zionists who rule Israel find themselves in a frightening situation, ergo, America must remain.  The only thing keeping Trump engaged in Syria is the allegation of a chemical attack, the same allegation that took the US to war in Syria in the first place and then kept them engaged under President Obama.  Now, the accusation is being used again.  However, the allegation is problematic. It is so problematic that it prompted US Senator Rand Paul to opine:

“I still look at the attack and say, you know, either Assad must be the dumbest dictator on the planet — or maybe he didn’t do it.  I have yet to see evidence that he did do it.”


“Either Assad Must be the Dumbest Dictator on the Planet — or Maybe He Didn’t Do It.” –  US Senator Rand Paul (0:50-1:18).

On March 19, Reuters reported that despite a seven-year international effort to depose him, President Bashar al-Assad is securely in power.  In fact, Reuters (by no means friendly to Assad) distributed a video showing the Syrian president driving to meet frontline soldiers near Ghouta.  Describing a road previously riddled by sniper fire Assad can be heard saying:

“The road is open… everything is running now in the city and in Syria.”

According to Reuters :

“While Assad has increasingly been shown traveling around Syria in recent years, it is unusual for him to visit areas close to the battlefront, as he did on Sunday, meeting cheering soldiers as well as civilians who had escaped the fighting. There have been numerous other signs of his increasing confidence, including the release last year of a banknote bearing his image for the first time since he became president in 2000.”

The senator from Kentucky is right: Assad must be the dumbest dictator on the planet; he is winning the war and decides to drop chemical weapons. The real story is that the Syrian army has routed the majority of terrorists operating in Syria and is defeating US backed terrorists in Ghouta. The end of ISIS is in reach, but each time Syria advances to this point, a chemical weapons charge is employed against them.

Is Syria Winning the War?

In September of 2017, Robert Ford, the former US ambassador to Syria,  announced that President Bashar al-Assad had “won” the war.

“This stark assessment was endorsed this week by the United Nations special envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, who called on rebel forces to accept that they had lost. Citing “critical” military gains made by government forces over the past nine months, and the involvement of numerous countries such as the US and Russia by proxy, De Mistura said the war was now almost over.”

Highlighting this point, in December 2017, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the withdraw of Russian troops from Syria because, as he stated,

“Russia’s task force and the Syrian government troops have routed “over slightly more than two years,” the “most combat-capable groups of international terrorists” (Jewish Press).

In short, the war was in its final stage; essentially all that was left was the Ghouta District, a district that was captured by US backed rebel forces in 2013 thereby trapping 400,000 Syrian civilians inside.  The main US backed rebel faction, Jaysh al-Islam – an al Qaeda affiliate – was then harbored in eastern Ghouta in a town named Douma. They were embedded amidst a dense civilian population, which resulted in large number of civilian casualties. There were many reports of theft of food and emergency supplies intended for civilians, the imposition of Sharia law, and the keeping of women and children inside cages to be exploited as human shields to inhibit Syrian the air force from bombing the city.

Eventually Assad’s forces were able to bring Jaysh al-Islam to its knees and then to the bargaining table to negotiate their surrender (Veterans Today – AMN). In short, the war was over, the battle for Ghouta was complete; the terrorists were even being evacuated from the city (BBC News). Even Newsweek announced, “The Worst of the War is Over, As ISIS nears Defeat.”

Then, strangely, hundreds of civilians were reportedly killed in Douma by chemical weapons allegedly employed by Syrian forces. This political non-sequitur prompted Senator Rand, and a host of others, to reject the allegation against Assad prompting him to ask can any political leader be so stupid: The war is over; Assad is securely in power and then he acts to bring the whole world against him by unleashing chemical weapons. It does not make sense.

Assad seems to gain nothing and risks losing everything; he has no apparent motive, but the Zionists ruling Israel have a clear motive: If things continue the way they are going, including the ongoing global demise of liberalism, the Zionists are about to lose control of their own country.

Mr. Trump might be gloating about a victory over ISIS, but so too is Assad (at least until the allegations were levelled against him); he is (was) poised to win the war.  However, as stated above, unlike Trump and Assad, the Zionists are not gloating; they are not excited about Assad’s prospects.  They are frightened by the shifting topography of the Middle East battlefield:  Iran is now united to Syria via Iraq and an existential threat to the Zionists.  Due to American foreign policy bungling in Iraq, Iran is now a greater threat to the Zionists then they were before the war in Iraq began under President Bush.  In addition to external degradation, the Zionists are facing mounting discontent and resultant opposition at home: Sixty percent of Orthodox men in Israel are unemployed:

“They are a real danger to Israel,” said Omer Moav, economics professor at the University of London and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. “If we go bankrupt it’s the end of the story for us. Our strong army rests on a strong economy” (Reuters).

Israeli economist Omer Moav thinks the situation is so dire that he suggests the use of force to bring the Orthodox (Heredim) into compliance with Zionist social-cultural standards:

“As long as the government won’t make a dramatic change, things will get worse. One cannot reach an agreed upon solution, it has to be forced upon the Haredim,” he said.

Surprising to many, Israel is the most impoverished nation in the Western world:

“The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development released a report showing that, of the world’s thirty-four economically developed countries, Israel is the most impoverished and has one of the highest rates of inequality. With a poverty rate of twenty-one per cent, Israel has a higher percentage of poor people than Mexico, Turkey, or debt-ridden Spain and Greece” (The New Yorker).

Not only is there an economic problem, Tel Aviv might be considered the world capital of homosexuality and Israel is denounced as a Zionist puppet state by its Orthodox rabbis:



Things are simply worse for the Zionist faction in 2018 than they were in 2011 or 1990. The Zionists do not want to be left alone to face Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. Supported by Dispensational think tanks such as Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and lobbies such as AIPAC, they expect American blood will be spilled in their defense. Pastor John Hagee would have Americans believe that being killed on the battlefield for Israel is a holy cause:

“I’ll bless those (Americans) that bless you (Israel) and I’ll curse those that curse you,” said Hagee, quoting from the book of Genesis. “That’s God’s foreign policy statement, and it has not changed.”

The Zionist campaign has been lauded by South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who speaking at a Hagee gathering thundered:

“Here’s a message for America: Don’t ever turn your back on Israel, because God will turn his back on us.”

Given ideological support such as this and news reports such as those quoted above, it is not surprising that just hours following President Trump’s March 3, 2018 meeting with his national security team in which he announced his firm intention to “bring the troops home”, the president reluctantly did an about-face and agreed to keep American troops in Syria for an unspecified amount of time to “complete the mission”, “defeat ISIS” and “secure gains”. In the process of acquiescing, President Trump asked his defense team:

His team responded that they couldn’t put a time frame to how long it will take to defeat ISIS and to train local forces to maintain their gains after the U.S. leaves. Trump clearly wants out, but his advisors have persuaded him to remain.  According to his Defense Secretary, James Mattis,

“The president made his displeasure clear about any kind of long-term presence in Syria,”  adding that the president was trying to “light a fire” under his team to get the military mission wrapped up (NBC News).

Although he was “trying to light a fire” to get the mission wrapped up, in the end, he followed their counsel.  He “wasn’t thrilled” according to Mattis, but “agreed to give the (war) effort more time.”
Then, a few days later, French President Emmanuel Macron sealed the deal:

“Ten days ago, President Trump was saying the United States of America had a duty to disengage from Syria, I assure you, we have convinced him that it is necessary to stay for the long-term” (The Times of Israel).

President Trump had promised to withdraw, his security advisers seconded by the President of France, convinced him to stay and then Syria was bombarded. Just when it looked as if he might actually make some headway toward implementing his foreign policy objectives, the president turned around and ordered a massive missile attack.

According to Macron the attack (despite its not being sanctioned by the UN) is justified by International Law  because “under a 2013 UN resolution, Syria was supposed to destroy its chemical weapons arsenal” (Times of Israel). International Law, however,  clearly specifies that the only time a nation may employ force is when it has a unanimous resolution by the UN Security Council authorizing use of force to rectify a violation of international peace and security or in the limited case of dire need for self-defense. Regardless of agreement or disagreement with the point, International Law does not permit the use of military force (even to punish or prevent chemical weapons attacks) without U.N. Security Council approval (New York Times). Absent such approval, the use of military force is prohibited for any reason except self-defense.

Thus, regarding the UK’s justification for the missile attack, Former British Ambassador, Craig Murray said it is “utter bullshit”.


Even Fox News has turned in favor of Assad:


“All the geniuses tell us Assad killed children, but do they really know that?  Of course they don’t – They are Making it Up” (2:29 – 2:37).

Trump’s order to attack (April 2018) was defended by Secretary Mattis who stated that the president had “legal authority” to launch the attack on his own, citing Article II of the United States Constitution and international laws banning chemical weapons.

Likewise, British Prime Minister Theresa May cited reports that the Syrian government employed a “barrel bomb” to deliver the chemicals used in the Douma affair. Consequently, she too concluded the decision to use force was “right and legal.”

International law does ban the use of chemical weapons, however, in this case, it was never determined that chemical weapons were ever used.  Trump ordered a strike before analysts could begin their work. He ordered an attack hours before the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)  was to launch its investigation.

According to Vassily Nebenzia, Russian Ambassador to the UN

“On 14 April local time, the United States, supported by its allies, had launched air strikes against Syria.  Without a mandate from the Council and in violation of the Charter and international norms, an aggressive act against a sovereign State had been carried out.  Just as the action taken one year earlier when an air base had come under attack, the United States had used as a pretext a staged chemical attack, this time in Douma.”


“OPCW experts had conducted a field mission.  On 10 April, when his country’s draft resolution (Russia’s) on the OPCW special mission had been blocked, he (the Russian Ambassador) had been assured that such a document had not been needed, and that the (OPCW)  mission would visit and investigate the sites.  However, the 13 April aggression had laid bare that that was not the issue (missiles were launched before the mission commenced)….’This is how you want international affairs to be conducted,’ he asked.  ‘This is hooliganism’ from major nuclear powers” (United Nations Official Documents).

The Russian ambassador is referring to the fact that an internationally recognized team was already on the ground and in place ready to investigate the alleged chemical attack, but before they could investigate, The United States, France and Great Britain launched their missile attack thereby impeding the investigation, which might have turned up nothing, thereby exonerating Assad, had it been permitted to investigate. Had it found him guilty, they might have been surprised to see Russia enter the camp in favor of deposing Assad, but this scenario was never tested. Instead, the United States, the UK and France launched an April 14 missile attack on Syrian government facilities, which they believe were used to produce chemical weapons. The Syrian authorities have repeatedly stated that the entire chemical arsenal was taken out of the country years before under the eyes of the international community monitored by the same OPCW whose investigation was negated by the recent missile attack.  In this regard, American Secretary of State John Kerry Kerry stated in a television interview that:

“We got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out.”

Contrary to Ambassador Nebenzia quoted above, his American counterpart, Nikki Haley (US Ambassador to the UN) stated that

“The targets selected were at the heart of the Syrian regime’s illegal chemical weapons programme, and the action taken by the three countries was legitimate and proportional.  Diplomacy had been given chance after chance, she said, recalling that, in 2013, the Security Council had passed a resolution requiring Syria to destroy its chemical weapons stockpile (the stockpile that Secretary of State Kerry said was “100% out”).  The President of the Russian Federation had said that his country would guarantee Syria’s compliance.  It had been hoped that diplomacy would succeed, but that had not happened, and while Russia was busy protecting the Syrian regime, that regime knew it could act with impunity, and it did.”


“We cannot stand by and let Russia trash every international norm that we stand for and allow the use of chemical weapons to go unanswered,” she said.

Haley in referring to international norms was careful to state that she considered only norms or standards the US agrees with or “stands for”, not those adumbrated by the UN. Likewise, “Mad Dog Mattis” cited Article II of the US Constitution.  Article II, however, is irrelevant since it authorizes the president to act when vital US interests are endangered, not those of the rest of the world.

In this regard the Russian Ambassador pointed out:

“It was shameful that, in justifying its aggression, that Government (United States) had cited its Constitution.  Washington, D.C, must learn: The international code of behaviour regarding the use of force was (is) regulated by the (UN) Charter”, not the United States Constitution, however great a document it might be.

The proper mode of action would have been permitting the OPCW to conduct its investigation.  Then, subject to its findings, Assad could have been either exonerated or punished.  The triple alliance, however, acted before any investigation could be carried out and in this way proceeded without any evidence except hearsay and thus seems to have violated International Law.  That is, even though International Law forbids the use of chemical weapons, any allegations of such use must be confirmed before the Security Council can be expected to give a green light for punitive or deterrent actions.  Absent such an investigation, Russia could not bring itself to cooperate. Perhaps if the US would have let the investigators investigate, and if the OPCW team had found chemical weapons pointing to Assad, they might have been surprised to see Russia cooperate to reign in Assad and perhaps work toward his removal. But this hypothetical scenario was never given a chance. Instead: Guilty before investigation and trial. This is a form of international vigilantism based on the premise that might makes right contrary to both the United States Constitution and the nation’s Declaration of Independence; it is the type of unilateral hegemony that the rest of the world increasingly finds wearisome.

Thus, Syrian TV called the attacks a “blatant violation of international law that shows contempt for international legitimacy.” President Trump responded by lambasteing Russia and Iran, for supporting “murderous dictators.”  Putin, however, reaffirmed Russia’s position that the chemical attack in Douma was a fake. He then chastised the US for initiating a strike without waiting for inspectors from the international chemical weapons community to conduct an investigation.

Nonetheless, President Trump has carefully avoided striking Russian assets and Russian personnel in Syria.  Instead, he has again indicated his “desire for improved relations with Moscow and possibly Tehran”, thereby leaving diplomatic channels ajar and avoiding a larger confrontation while leaving the door open for a graceful exit on a double high note: (1) The defeat of ISIS and (2) the whacking of Assad. But, it is Assad who has the greater victory. And it is Israel that now finds itself in a seemingly impossible imbroglio.  Perhaps, the region will finally find its way to peace, but that will require the negation of Zionism in Israel and whatever forces are on the horizon to bring such an eventuality to fruition.