Promoting Globalism Through Illegal Immigration Why the Vatican and America’s bishops support open borders. by Joseph Hippolito

https://www.frontpagemag.com/promoting-globalism-through-illegal-immigration/

Months before officials in New York City allowed migrants to displace students in public schools, or officials in Chicago turned O’Hare International Airport into a refugee center, the former general counsel for the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services made a frightening prediction about illegal immigration.

“This is going to be a catastrophe for our health-care system, our criminal justice system, our educational system,” Elizabeth Yore said in December. “We’re not going to recognize our society in two years. The crime and the chaos in the schools is going to be unimaginable. We are going to be paying for this for decades, generations.”

The fact that Yore, a conservative Catholic, made that criticism holds more than casual significance — especially since the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops effectively supports open borders.

As FrontPage Magazine twice reported, the USCCB uses taxpayer dollars to fund its human trafficking campaign, thereby enriching that body. But the payment it exacts for exploiting poor Latin American migrants exceeds the monetary.

The bishops use immigration as a weapon to implement Pope Francis’ globalist vision, which demands the eradication of national identity and legitimate national self-interest. That explains the bishops’ vehement opposition to President Donald Trump and their failure to forge a united front against Joe Biden, one of Francis’ favorites.

It also explains the bishops’ breathtaking silence on such crimes as child trafficking, sex trafficking and drug trafficking, and the prelates’ refusal to defend innocent Americans of all ethnicities against crimes perpetrated by illegal immigrants — including murder, as the “Angel Families” can attest.

Finally, it explains the bishops’ opposition to controlling illegal immigration through such means as “a tripling of Border Patrol agents, especially at ports of entry, and the use of sophisticated technology such as ground sensors, surveillance cameras, heat-detecting scopes, and reinforced fencing,” as a joint pastoral letter from American and Mexican bishops stated in 2003.

“That such measures might, in fact, deter or detect individuals trafficking children, the bishops ignored,” Marjorie Murphy Campbell, a Catholic lawyer, wrote for The Christian Review, a website founded by the former publisher of a conservative Catholic magazine, Crisis.

Democrats don’t seem eager to defend Harris ahead of 2024 by Haisten Willis,

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/democrats-not-eager-to-defend-harris

Questions are once again swirling around Vice President Kamala Harris.

This time, the story is about whether or not Harris is an asset to President Joe Biden and whether she’s the best choice to join his 2024 ticket.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) spoke well of Harris during a recent CNN appearance but stopped short of endorsing her for ’24.

“[Biden] thinks so, and that’s what matters,” Pelosi said when asked by Anderson Cooper if Harris should be on the ticket.

Pelosi pointed to Harris’s campaign record as California’s attorney general in 2011, calling the vice president “very politically astute” for winning the election while only having 6% in the polls at one point.

But when asked again if she believed Harris was the best running mate for the president, Pelosi dodged giving an endorsement for the second time, saying the vice president generally doesn’t “do that much” but is “a source of strength, inspiration, intellectual resource, and the rest.”

While 54% of Democratic voters are satisfied with Harris as Biden’s running mate in 2024, fewer are enthusiastic, 30%, according to the latest CBS News-YouGov poll. Her approval ratings have consistently lagged Biden’s.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) followed up the next morning by discussing “the MAGA Right” when asked about Harris.

Jake Tapper then pressed again on Raskin’s opinion of Harris as Biden’s 2024 running mate.

“That’s President Biden’s choice. And I think she’s an excellent running mate for President Biden,” Raskin responded. “I don’t know what more needs to be said about that.”

Iran blocks nuclear inspectors after U.S. unfreezes billions of dollars for Tehran Moves come as Biden, Iranian president head to U.N. General Assembly

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/sep/17/iran-blocks-nuclear-inspectors-after-us-unfreezes-/

Iran began barring U.N. inspectors from nuclear sites over the weekend, days after the Biden administration freed up $6 billion in frozen funds in pursuit of a prisoner swap.

The development, which comes as Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi prepares for a visit to New York City to address the U.N. General Assembly, adds a fresh layer to rising tensions over Tehran‘s nuclear activities.

In a rare statement, U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi said Saturday that Iranian officials had informed him they will no longer permit certain International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to conduct “essential verification work at the enrichment facilities in Iran which are under Agency safeguards

“Iran has effectively removed about one-third of the core group of the agency’s most experienced inspectors designated for Iran,” Mr. Grossi said.

The inspectors are in Iran to ensure compliance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Mr. Grossi acknowledged that under the NPT, Iran is permitted to veto individual inspectors it does not agree with. But the IAEA chief said Tehran‘s latest move is unwarranted.

“I strongly condemn this disproportionate and unprecedented unilateral measure which affects the normal planning and conduct of agency verification activities in Iran and openly contradicts the cooperation that should exist between the agency and Iran,” he said.

Liz Peek: Biden Backing UAW on Demands for Wages That Would Give Elon Musk and Xi Jinping the Last Laugh

https://www.nysun.com/article/biden-backing-uaw-on-demands-for-wages-that-would-give-elon-musk-and-xi-jinping-the-last-laugh

In Joe Biden’s 1950s world, unions are good and corporations bad. Hence his response to the UAW strike against the three legacy automakers. “Over the last — the past decade,” he said, “auto companies have seen record profits, including the last few years, because of the extraordinary skill and sacrifices of the UAW workers.”

Yet, the president said, “those record profits have not been shared fairly, in my view, with those workers.” He added, referring to current negotiations: “I believe they should go further to ensure record corporate profits mean record contracts for the UAW.” Nothing like putting the presidential thumb on the bully scale.

In Mr. Biden’s world, because the automakers have had a few good years, they should award unionized employees huge pay hikes. Never mind that if our economy slows and demand for cars slumps, the auto firms would be stuck with higher costs that would make them even less competitive with non-union companies like Tesla or BYD in Communist China. 

Nikki Haley says presidential candidates should have mental competency tests; business IQ tests might be more useful, starting with the “sacrifices” made by autoworkers that Mr. Biden hails. It is true that during the Great Recession UAW members accepted changes in contract terms that allowed the auto makers to stay in business.

Taxpayers, already being crushed by government levies, forked over $80 billion to bail out GM and Chrysler. Much of that was eventually paid back. The country was largely sympathetic; after all, it was banks that had caused the 2008 downturn, so why should Detroit’s Big Three and their employees suffer?

Turnabout: Reporter Ducks Questions from Congressman About Biden Scandals: Craig Bannister

https://mrctv.org/blog/craig-bannister/turnabout-reporter-ducks-questions-congressman-about-biden-scandals

The tables were turned Thursday, when a reporter ducked questions from a congressman.

Associated Press (AP) Reporter Farnoush Amiri tried to get House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to agree that Republicans launched an impeachment inquiry into Pres. Joe Biden without any evidence of an impeachable offense.

McCarthy responded like a contestant on “Jeopardy!” – by putting his answer in the form of questions.

But first, the congressman explained to AP’s Amiri that an impeachment inquiry is the not same as an impeachment – it’s just a fact-finding mission.

Rep. McCarthy then asked Amiri if she believed five items of evidence already obtained through sworn testimony:

Rep. McCarthy: “OK. Do you agree that, do you believe the president lied to the American public when he said he’d never talked to his son about business dealings? Yes or no?”

Rep. McCarthy: “Do you believe when they said the president went on conference calls? Do you believe that happened?”

Rep. McCarthy: “Do you believe the president went to Cafe Milano and had dinner with the clients of Hunter Biden, who believes he got those clients because he was selling the brand?”

Rep. McCarthy: “Do you believe Hunter Biden, when you saw the video of him driving the Porsche, that he got $143,000 to buy that Porsche the next day?

Think Impeachment Will Help Biden?

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/09/18/think-impeachment-will-help-biden-then-why-is-he-behaving-like-a-cornered-rat/

Whatever your views are on impeachment, the fact that so many on the left are acting like cornered rats is a pretty good reason for Republicans to carry on.

Over the weekend, we came across a story warning Republicans about their decision to start an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.

“It may well ensure that Republicans lose control of the House in 2024,” the story says. “And it could also give Joe Biden a boost as he runs for reelection, presumably against Donald Trump himself.”

In just the past few days we’ve seen a multitude of such warnings. Here’s a small sampling:

“Impeaching Biden Is a Desperate Gamble That Will Backfire”
“Republicans would love to impeach Biden. It would backfire on them.”
“How Republicans’ Push to Impeach Joe Biden Could Backfire”
“Could the Biden impeachment inquiry backfire on Republicans?”
“Will the House GOP’s Biden impeachment probe backfire?”
“This is the White House’s Dream!”

Here’s the strange thing. Every one of these headlines appeared in leftist newspapers, were penned by leftist authors, or were uttered on leftist cable news programs.

It’s almost as though these outlets all got their marching orders from a single source. Which, it turns, out, they did – the Biden White House.

An Aug. 31 story in The Hill – headlined “White House warns GOP Biden impeachment will backfire” – says that “the White House remains steadfastly confident that if the GOP goes forward with an inquiry … it will hurt Republicans more than it could hurt Biden.”

Gary Gensler Tells a Climate Whopper The SEC Chairman fibs to Congress about his pending disclosure rule.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gary-gensler-sec-climate-disclosure-rule-congress-testimony-ef28eda6?mod=opinion_lead_pos4

When is a climate policy not a climate policy? Apparently when Chairman Gary Gensler of the Securities and Exchange Commission is trying to disguise the intent of his forthcoming climate-disclosure rule while testifying before Congress.

The SEC last spring proposed a highly controversial rule that would require public companies to disclose their putative climate risks and greenhouse-gas emissions, including those of suppliers and customers. The rule is expected to be finalized soon and will likely meet a swift legal challenge under the Supreme Court’s major questions doctrine because Congress never authorized it.

Mr. Gensler told the Senate Banking Committee last week this was no big deal. The rule “is built on multi-decades authority about disclosure” going back to New Deal legislation, he claimed. Nice try.

The 1934 Securities Exchange Act allows the SEC to mandate disclosures that are “necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.” But even the Obama SEC in 2016 conceded that “a specific congressional mandate” would be necessary before adopting a climate disclosure rule. How does it benefit the public and investors to require, say,Walmartto calculate its greenhouse-gas emissions? The mandate will merely increase business costs, which will be passed on to customers.

Mr. Gensler also claimed he is merely trying “to bring comparability to that which is already happening” and that “over 80% of the top 1,000 companies in 2021 were making climate disclosures.”

But climate and greenhouse-gas emissions aren’t equally material to all businesses. His one-size-fits-all regulation is trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

DayQuil, Covid Vaccine Boosters and FDA Science The industry studies that showed a decongestant was effective turned out to be flawed. Sound familiar? By Allysia Finley

https://www.wsj.com/articles/dayquil-covid-vaccine-boosters-and-fda-science-medicine-study-pill-placebo-sick-bb9e457b?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

If DayQuil never seemed to unstuff your nose, now you know why: Its core decongesting ingredient, phenylephrine, doesn’t work.

That’s what a Food and Drug Administration advisory committee unanimously concluded last week, 16 years after researchers first told the agency that evidence from the 1960s and ’70s purportedly demonstrating the ingredient’s efficacy was flawed. For decades, people have been taking what amounts to a placebo.

But unlike a sugar pill, phenylephrine can cause lightheadedness, queasiness, headaches and a rapid heartbeat. What took the FDA so long to act?

Perhaps typical bureaucratic inertia and reluctance to backtrack on “settled science.” This episode mirrors the debate over Covid boosters, which the FDA approved last week, the day before its advisory committee concluded phenylephrine is ineffective. As was the case for phenylephrine, booster recommendations are based on flawed studies and extrapolations.

The FDA concluded in 1994 that phenylephrine was “generally recognized as safe and effective” when administered orally, such as in a cold syrup, “even though the efficacy data were borderline,” according to an agency staff report. Why? Because the ingredient had proved effective when administered intranasally.

Yet studies as early as the 1930s showed that significantly higher doses of phenylephrine than are safe would be needed to have a decongesting effect, since it is mostly metabolized before reaching the bloodstream. At the time, however, the FDA credited positive evidence from poorly constructed industry studies.

When the agency revisited the issue in 2007, an industry meta-analysis of prior flawed studies showed phenylephrine was effective. But as an agency scientific adviser quipped at a regulatory briefing that March, “all meta-analysis is post facto. You only do it if you know you’re going to win.” The FDA then sought more studies to measure the efficacy of higher doses—yet the three placebo-controlled trials between 2015 and 2018 were negative.

In its recent review, FDA staff concluded that early studies demonstrating the drug’s efficacy were flawed and possibly biased. Ten, all from the same industry sponsor, had “multiple methodological and statistical issues” and apparent “data integrity” problems. Two “produced near textbook perfect results that could not be duplicated in other similarly designed studies.”

THE PREAMBLE TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION SEPTEMBER 17, 1787 *****

The preamble is an introduction to the highest law of the land; it is not the law. It does not define government powers or individual rights.

Establish Justice is the first of five objectives outlined in the 52-word paragraph that the Framers drafted in six weeks during the hot Philadelphia summer of 1787. They found a way to agree on the following basic principles:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

A timely moment to wish ‘happy #236’ to the US Constitution By Silvio Canto, Jr.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/09/a_timely_moment_to_wish_happy_236_to_the_us_constitution.html

We begin today with a “happy birthday” to the U.S. Constitution.  Maybe you remember this from your U.S. History class.  They taught it when I went to school, and I’m hoping that they still do today.  Or maybe they start today’s classes with a reminder that it was the work of a bunch of white guys who had slaves and didn’t let their wives vote.

This is the story that I learned:

On May 25, 1787, delegates representing every state except Rhode Island convened at Philadelphia’s Pennsylvania State House for the Constitutional Convention. The building, which is now known as Independence Hall, had earlier seen the drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the signing of the Articles of Confederation. The assembly immediately discarded the idea of amending the Articles of Confederation and set about drawing up a new scheme of government. Revolutionary War hero George Washington, a delegate from Virginia, was elected convention president.

During an intensive debate, the delegates devised a brilliant federal organization characterized by an intricate system of checks and balances. The convention was divided over the issue of state representation in Congress, as more-populated states sought proportional legislation, and smaller states wanted equal representation. The problem was resolved by the Connecticut Compromise, which proposed a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the lower house (House of Representatives) and equal representation of the states in the upper house (Senate).

On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was signed. As dictated by Article VII, the document would not become binding until it was ratified by nine of the 13 states. Beginning on December 7, five states—Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut—ratified it in quick succession. However, other states, especially Massachusetts, opposed the document, as it failed to reserve un-delegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. In February 1788, a compromise was reached under which Massachusetts and other states would agree to ratify the document with the assurance that amendments would be immediately proposed. The Constitution was thus narrowly ratified in Massachusetts, followed by Maryland and South Carolina. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document, and it was subsequently agreed that government under the U.S. Constitution would begin on March 4, 1789. In June, Virginia ratified the Constitution, followed by New York in July.