Lew Rockwell Institute

NBC News just reported the following:

The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic sent a letter Wednesday to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland accusing the former governor of providing false statements to the panel when he testified on June 11.

In the Republican-led committee’s referral, it says Cuomo “knowingly and willfully made materially false statements” to the panel during its investigation into the New York’s Covid-19 response. The statements in question stem from exchanges about a New York state Department of Health report on nursing home infections and deaths that was released on July 6, 2020.

The report caught my eye because I have long followed the New York nursing home scandal, which I thoroughly investigated for our book The Courage to Face COVID-19: Preventing Hospitalization and Death While Battling the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex.

This particular chapter about the mindbogglingly stupid and criminal pandemic response is so noteworthy that I believe it is worth republishing here on our Substack.

CHAPTER 11: “Cuomosexuals”

On the same day (March 23) that Dr. Bright initiated his scheme to restrict hydroxychloroquine to hospitalized patients, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued the following executive order:

No pharmacist shall dispense hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine except when written as prescribed as an FDA-approved indication; or as part of a state approved clinical trial related to COVID-19 for a patient who has tested positive for COVID-19 with such test result documented as part of the prescription. No other experimental or prophylactic use shall be permitted …

This order prohibited New York pharmacies from filling off-label prescriptions for Covid patients. The exceptionally determined Dr. Zelenko found a way to get around it, but it made his practice much more difficult.

Two days later, on March 25, the New York Department of Health issued the following directive to nursing home administrators:

No resident shall be denied re-admission or admission to the NH solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19. NHs are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission.

As anyone who has ever worked in a nursing home knows, respiratory viruses can rip through the facility and cause severe illness. Virulent common cold rhinovirus outbreaks have resulted in multiple deaths in this setting. By March 25, it was crystal clear that the risk of severe disease and death from COVID-19 is by far the highest for patients over the age of seventy-five. Thus, ordering “confirmed or suspected” Covid patients to be readmitted to nursing homes was the equivalent of forcing foxes into henhouses. What was the New York State Health Department thinking?

On March 27, the United States set the world record of COVID-19 cases, and New York City was the nation’s epicenter—a five-alarm fire of serious infections. On April 10, New York State recorded more Covid cases than any country on earth except the United States in total and its nursing homes were devastated by the contagion. The legacy media was slow to notice this, perhaps because it was blinded by Governor Cuomo’s stardom. He gave daily press conferences in which he spoke about the measures he and his team were taking to keep New Yorkers safe. Millions across the country watched these performances for which he later received an Emmy.

As the spring wore on, reports of mass casualty events in nursing homes emerged, and these drew scrutiny to the Health Department’s March 25 directive. On May 21, the Associated Press reported that over 4,500 Covid patients had been sent back into New York nursing homes. This number would later be revised upward to over 9,000. The AP report coincided with growing suspicion the Health Department wasn’t being transparent about mortality data in these facilities. Suspicion was confirmed on January 28, 2021, when New York Attorney General Latitia James reported that the Department of Health had undercounted nursing home deaths by 50%.

On February 11, 2021, the New York Post published a leaked audio recording of Governor Cuomo’s secretary, Melissa DeRosa, speaking confidentially with the New York State Democratic Committee. On this tape she can be heard apologizing for concealing nursing home data. Though mealy-mouthed, her apology revealed that Cuomo’s team had acted out of fear of getting into trouble with the DOJ.

Basically, we froze because then we were in a position where we weren’t sure if what we were going to give to the Department of Justice or what we give to you guys and what we start saying was going to be used against us, and we weren’t sure if there was going to be an investigation.

After making this confession, she changed the subject to “the context” of their decision—namely, they were concerned that President Trump would try to politicize the incident in the upcoming election.

“Right around the same time, he [Trump] turns this into a giant political football,” she told the Committee.

For many who followed the New York nursing home story, it seemed emblematic of many pathologies afflicting the U.S. political and media class. First was the nepotism of the Cuomo family, with CNN Anchor Chris and Governor Andrew regularly putting on shows for their fawning, sentimental fans, many of whom called themselves “Cuomosexuals.” T-shirts, hats, coffee mugs, and even a popular music video appeared bearing the term’s definition: In love with competent, reassuring governance by a leader who uses complete sentences and displays common sense during a pandemic.

The Governor’s cult of personality yielded a $5.2 million book deal with Penguin Random House, initiated by an acquiring editor on March 19, 2020, three days before the state went into lockdown. The deal for American Crisis: Leadership Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic stipulated the book be ready for publication before the November elections. Governor Cuomo purportedly wrote a 70,000-word typescript in three months while at the same time executing his duties as full-time “Leader” in handling New York’s Covid crisis. The state ethics board approved the deal on the condition that no state resources were used in the book’s production, but that didn’t stop Cuomo from using his staff and a ghostwriter.

Read the Whole Article

The post House Panel Refers Andrew Cuomo for Prosecution appeared first on LewRockwell.

In a recent interview I was asked who would win the American presidential election.  In the US the definition of a “win” can easily be a Democrat theft. Over the many decades during which in former times Democrats represented the working class, the Democrats gained political control of the cities in which the working class resided.  This means Democrats preside over election procedures and what votes are cast and counted. 

I answered that the vote fraud mechanisms Democrats used in 2020 and 2022 in the swing states have now been legalized so that it is legal for the Democrats to steal the 2024 election.  Moreover, some states have made it illegal to require an ID to vote, and Democrat federal judges have tried to force Virginia and other states to include non-citizens on the voting rolls.

On this website I have reported many of the legalized theft mechanisms now in operation.  In the interview I noted that for theft to succeed, the election needed to be close, and that polls rigged by polling more Democrats than Republicans showed a close election.  In other words, the rigged polls are setting the stage for a theft.

But what if the election isn’t close?  Indeed, how can it be?  Lets acknowledge the three elements that weigh heavily against the Biden-Harris Democrat regime.

First the economy, always Americans’ main electoral focus.  The Biden lockdowns by blocking supply gave us inflation. To fight the inflation, we got high interest rates.  The impact on Americans of high inflation and high interest rates is dramatically negative.  Why would Americans vote for more of the same?

Second, the Biden-Harris regime has made it perfectly clear that it intends to keep America’s borders open until millions of immigrant-invaders turn America into a Tower of Babel with no national unity.  The sphere of safety for American citizens is shrinking.  Why would Americans vote for their dispossession?

Third, the wars.  The United States has been at war for the entirety of the 21st century for no national purpose.  Americans are not against wars as long as they win them, but when they lose–as in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Ukraine, they turn against the wars.  The Biden-Harris regime have given Americans a losing war in Ukraine. Why would Americans vote for a regime that gave their proud selves another war loss?

Given these demerits against Kamala, what are the accomplishments of the Biden-Harris regime?  There are none for everyday Americans. The accomplishments are only for the Woke leftwing ideologues: curtailments on free speech, use of law as a weapon against Trump and his supporters, normalization of sexual perversity, replacement of merit with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion — that is, with unconstitutional privileges in violation of the 14th Amendment and the 1964 Civil Rights Act —  based on race, gender, and sexual preferences.  

The Biden-Harris regime has attempted a coup.  The Biden-Harris regime has done its best to overthrow America and to install a Sodom and Gomorrah Tower of Babel.  The November election will tell us how successful their coup has been. 

The coup would have a better chance with a different candidate than Kamala, whose campaign has consisted of laughing her way through her nonsensical answers and derision of Trump, calling him a fascist.  Democrat newspapers such as The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today refused to endorse Kamala.  The  New York Times asked:  “Where is the Fierce Urgency of Beating Trump?”

On October 28 Jeff Bezos wrote in The Washington Post, which he owns, that the reputation of the print and TV media has fallen below that of Congress.  “Our profession is now the least trusted of all.”

Bezos realizes that the liberal media’s lie machine  has lost its credibility.  “Reality is an undefeated champion.”  To regain credibility, Bezos says, the media will have to return to accuracy and cease to sacrifice truth to the promotion of ideological agendas.  “The Washington Post and the New York Times win prizes, but increasingly we talk only to a certain elite.  More and more, we talk to ourselves.”  

The problem that Bezos and the print and TV media face is that journalism schools only produce ideological activists who are motivated to control explanations to advance Woke agendas and not to report the facts.  You can see the truth of this in the fact that the handful of real journalists America still has — Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Joe Rogen — have all been evicted from print and TV media and operate independent Internet sites.  Where is Bezos going to find an honest editor?  Where is an honest editor going to find an honest reporter?  If he does, why will advertisers support media that does not advance advertisers’ agendas?  America is so purchased by money serving special interests that the re-emergence of truthful reporting is difficult to visualize.  

Bezos is correct to be concerned that today one-person websites such as this one and one-person podcasts have more credibility than The Washington Post.  I think Bezos’ concern and the refusal of Democrat newspapers to endorse Kamala will make it difficult this time for the Democrats to steal another election.  This time it is possible that the liberal newspapers won’t shout with one voice without investigating the facts: “There was no vote fraud.”

Thomas Jefferson said that every 200 years the Tree of Liberty has to be watered with the blood of tyrants.  The watering is long overdue.  The November election is the last chance of Americans to exist as a free people.  Will they piss the chance away?

The post Are the Presstitutes Final Days at Hand? appeared first on LewRockwell.

The poll conducted by the Real Presence Coalition confirms what was already evident when Paul VI authorized the modification of the discipline in this matter. First of all, it was clear that the so-called “reforms” imposed by a group of subversives Modernists did not respond to any request “from the grass roots.” Neither the Novus Ordo nor the new ways of administering Communion were the fruit of a real need of the ecclesial body. The opposite is true, however, that the so-called liturgical reform was intended to help spread the doctrine it contained among the clergy and the faithful, causing the πρᾶξις (praxis) to influence the δόξα (belief). The concept summarized by the adage Lex orandi, lex credendi has been widely adopted by the proponents of the conciliar reform, but in reverse and maliciously: in this case it is not in fact the oρθοδοξία (orthodoxy) that determines the ὀρθοπραξία (orthopraxy), but the ἑτεροπραξία (heteropraxy) that shapes the ἑτεροδοξία (heterodoxy).

The faithful who are asked to kneel to receive Holy Communion in the mouth are led by the gestures they make to recognize the Real Presence in the Sacred Species and to adhere to the corresponding Catholic doctrine. Similarly, the faithful who are asked not to kneel and to touch the Host with their hands end up believing the heterodox doctrine insinuated by the Reformed rites. This doctrinal change is further favored when the ritual change replaces an entirely opposite practice. 

This shows unequivocally that those who meddled with the Liturgy after the Council knew very well what would be the disruptive scope of the Novus Ordo in corrupting the Faith of the people of God. They did not explicitly modify the lex credendi, but wanted to express their deviations in the lex orandi, knowing full well that it would have been much easier to make people lose faith in the Real Presence by making them receive Communion standing and in their hands, rather than preaching these errors from the pulpits while continuing to administer Communion on their knees and in the mouth. The fact that the Hierarchy has imposed standing and holding Communion on the faithful has been perceived as a repudiation of the past and a rejection of previous doctrine.

The evidence for this reasoning is confirmed by an unusual source: ChatGPT, a conversational “artificial intelligence” app. I tried to interrogate ChatGTP not because I consider it a true form of intelligence but because its data processing system identifies causal relationships on the mathematical model and it is therefore interesting to see how an algorithm is able to detect what the mainstream narrative pretends not to see.

This is the question I asked:

If a Pope wanted to weaken the faith of Catholics in the Real Presence, how should he modify the rite of Communion? 

This is the answer I got: 

If a Pope wanted to weaken the Catholic faith in the Real Presence, he might consider some changes to the rite of Communion, such as:

1. Simplified rituals: Reduce the number of ritual elements that emphasize the sacredness of Communion, such as worship or genuflection.
2. Symbolic elements: Promote an emphasis on the symbolism of the bread and wine, rather than on their transformation into the Body and Blood of Christ.
3. Verbal communication: Use language that highlights Communion as a commemorative act rather than an actual encounter with Christ.
4. Modification of prayers: Change prayers and liturgical texts to reflect a more symbolic vision of Communion, minimizing references to the Real Presence.
5. Flexibility in administration: Allow alternative forms of receiving Communion that may seem less sacramental, such as receiving it in a more informal form or without liturgical celebration.

These changes could contribute to a more muted view of the Real Presence among the faithful.

Read the Whole Article

The post Abp. Viganò uses AI To Show How Communion in the Hand Destroys Belief in the Real Presence appeared first on LewRockwell.

In his narrative poem The Divine Comedy, 14th-century Italian sage Dante Alighieri reserved the ninth and deepest circle of his Inferno for those scoundrels who betrayed their comrades and leaders — Brutus, Cassius, Judas Iscariot, Satan himself.

A revised MAGA edition of The Divine Comedy might justifiably find space in that circle for people like Liz Cheney, Gen. Mark Kelly, and the editorial staff of The Bulwark.  Although many would put former vice president Mike Pence in there as well, I would not.

I would argue for a lower circle still, a tenth circle.  Although Dante did not say, as alleged, “The darkest places of hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis,” someone did, and it makes sense.  After all, one can respect the traitor for taking a stand, however evil.  But it is hard to respect those who, in times of moral crisis, sit on their hands.

Dark these hellish places may be, but in Republican circles, they are popular nonetheless.  Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, the Bush family, half the staff of the National Review — they have been there for years.  Pence is a late arrival.

Pence’s descent into the political nether world began on January 6, 2021.  At noon on that fateful Wednesday, President Donald Trump began his speech on the White House Ellipse.  In the speech, Trump pinned his hopes on the actions of Pence.

“States want to revote,” said the president.  “The states got defrauded.  They were given false information.  They voted on it.  Now they want to recertify.  They want it back.  All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people.”

From the crowd’s perspective, Pence was going to be the day’s hero or its goat.  Trump made the process seem much simpler than it ever could possibly be, but if he was deceiving anyone, he started by deceiving himself.

“If this happened to the Democrats,” Trump continued, “there’d be hell all over the country going on.  There’d be hell all over the country.”  About this, he was absolutely right.  The left had set up some four hundred protest sites, ready to sabotage a Trump victory.  These protests did not portend to be any more peaceful than those that followed the death of George Floyd.

Trump, however, did not expect violence from his supporters.  “You’re the real people, you’re the people that built this nation,” he told them.  “You’re not the people that tore down our nation.”  Trump soon followed with the speech’s most quoted line — most quoted on conservative media, that is — “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”  The House January 6 committee and special prosecutor Jack Smith both edited this line out of their respective documents.  The media never played it.

Just before 1:00 p.m., about 15 minutes before Trump had concluded his speech, Mike Pence tweeted out a letter he had failed to clear with the president.  In the letter’s opening, Pence would seem to have swallowed what the media uniformly called the “big lie” — namely, any suggestion that the 2020 election was something less than “free and fair.”

Wrote Pence, “After an election with significant allegations of voting irregularities and numerous instances of officials setting aside state election law, I share the concerns of millions of Americans about the integrity of this election.”

Later in the letter, Pence affirmed the right of members of Congress to protest what was clearly a flawed election.  “Given the voting irregularities that took place in our November elections and the disregard of state election statutes by some officials,” wrote Pence, “I welcome the efforts of Senate and House members who have stepped forward to use their authority under the law to raise objections and present evidence.”

These, however, were not the words that shaped history.  Said Pence for the ages, “It is my considered judgment that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not.”

Pence did not come to this conclusion casually.  He must have suspected, however, that had he sent the results back to the states for further adjudication, he might have launched a civil war.  What he got instead was a largely peaceful protest that the Democrats shamelessly alchemized into an insurrection.

For the first several months or so after January 6, Pence wandered about in his own limbo.  For all the talk of bad blood between them, he and Trump kept in touch.  At an April 2021 gathering of pastors, reported the Washington Post, “Pence spoke with an almost reverence about the former president.”  He stressed Trump’s accomplishments in office and ignored Trump’s criticisms of his actions on January 6.

If anyone, it was Pence who severed the alliance.  To position himself for a presidential run in 2024, he felt he had to.  Unwilling to attack Trump’s policies, Pence chose to focus on the president’s comportment on January 6.  As the New York Times reported in May 2022, Pence “used high-profile speeches to criticize the former president’s push to overturn the 2020 election results.”

The vice president who on January 6 criticized “significant allegations of voting irregularities and numerous instances of officials setting aside state election law” had moved on.  Apparently, Pence no longer shared “the concerns of millions of Americans about the integrity of [the 2020] election.”

Read the Whole Article

The post Pointless Mike Pence appeared first on LewRockwell.