COMMENTARY / OPINION
US’ Iran Policy – Iranian Reality vs. Alternate Reality Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, “Second Thought: a US-Israel Initiative”
April 29, 2025
It has been maintained that Iran’s Ayatollah regime is Israel’s problem, does not pose a serious threat to the US and global stability, and is manageable via negotiation. However, this assumption is repudiated by the march of facts.
1. Irrespective of Israel, Iran’s Ayatollah regime is driven by a 1,400-year-old fanatical vision, that is underscored by Iran’s school curriculum, mosque sermons, official media and sustained policy. This fanatical vision mandates the toppling of all pro-US Sunni Arab regimes and bringing the “infidel” West to submission, primarily “The Great American Satan.” Since the February 1979 toppling of Iran’s Shah, the Ayatollah regime has emerged as the leading global epicenter of anti-US wars, terrorism, drug trafficking and the proliferation of advanced military systems. It considers Israel as “The Little Satan” – the vanguard of the US in the Middle East and its first line of defense. Moreover, the Ayatollah regime has expanded its anti-US rogue operations beyond the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, into Africa and Latin America, which is the soft underbelly of the US. For example, since the early 1980s, Iran has established terrorist training camps and ballistic missiles testing grounds in Latin America, solidifying strategic cooperation with drug cartels in Mexico, Columbia, Bolivia, Ecuador and Brazil, as well as with all anti-US Latin American governments, while proliferating terrorist sleeper cells on US soil (according to the FBI).
2. It is suggested that the Ayatollah regime is willing to talk, and therefore, supposedly, it is incumbent upon the US to expedite negotiations, attempting to clear up misconceptions. Supposedly, negotiation reduces the prospects of – and is preferable to – war.
However, as appealing as is the Iranian talk, the policy toward Iran must be based on the Iranian walk, which has been antithetical to its talk.
Moreover, while the US considers negotiation as a step toward potential reconciliation, the Ayatollah regime considers negotiation with a transient “infidel” Western entity as a step toward advancing its eternal fanatical vision,which transcends financial and diplomatic mega-benefits. Negotiation is used by Iran to run the clock down, recuperate from recent military blows, avoid a decisive military setback, and acquire nuclear capabilities (which may require a few months), in order to substantially erode the global strategic posture of the US.
3.The negotiation option is preferable to the military option, when conducted between parties, which respect the existence of each other.
But, negotiation is self-destructive when conducted with rogue Middle East entities, that are driven by a fanatical ideology and religion, which are the most critical features of their vision, mandating the crushing/subjugation of their “infidel” partners to negotiation. At best, negotiation with such rogue entities (e.g., the Ayatollah regime, Hamas, Hezbollah) could lead to another tentative accord, to be suspended when the rogue entity gains the power to defy its “infidel” negotiation partner.
For example, Israel managed to negotiate and implement defense and commercial cooperation with Saudi Arabia, and conclude peace treaties with Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and South Sudan, none of which is driven by a vision, which mandates the elimination of Israel. Their national visions are dedicated to the enhancement of their national security and standard of living. Thus, Saudi Arabia’s “Vision 2030” considers Israel as a prominent partner in the defense against the Ayatollah regime and the Muslim Brotherhood. Israel is, also, a productive partner in diversifying the energy-reliant Saudi economy and enhancing the state of the Saudi agriculture and irrigation, through the introduction of advanced Israeli technologies.
Moreover, irrespective of the recent resumption of Saudi diplomatic ties with Iran, the Saudi Crown Prince is fully aware that Tehran’s fanatical ideology transcends diplomacy and business considerations. In fact, US negotiation with – rather than a regime change in – Iran has been perceived by the Crown Prince as a self-destructive policy, which has intensified the Iranian threat, thus undermining Saudi confidence in the US, and therefore, setting Riyadh farther from the Abraham Accords.
On the other hand, the Ayatollah regime, Hamas, Hezbollah and the PLO/PA are driven by fanatical ideologies (e.g., the 1979 Ayatollah Constitution, the 1959 and 1964 Fatah and PLO Charters) which are entrenched in their school curriculum and religious and media establishment, mandating them to bring their enemies (partners to negotiation) to submission.
4. It is the interest of the US – as it is for all Western democracies – to minimize, prevent and end wars and terrorism.
Nevertheless, a prerequisite for minimizing, preventing and ending wars and terrorism is the obliteration of the leading epicenter of anti-US global wars and terrorism, which has been the Ayatollah regime. Similarly, the attempt to minimize, prevent and end crime in any urban center is preconditioned upon the elimination of – not negotiation with – the leading crime families and gangs in the area. The attempt to end any rogue reality, on the one hand, and negotiating with the leading epicenters of that rogue reality, on the other hand, constitutes an oxymoron. It perpetuates and intensifies, not minimizes, prevents nor ends the rogue reality.
5. While the focus of the US policy on Iran has been on nuclear capabilities, it is Iran’s conventional and ballistic capabilities – energized by Iran’s fanatical and apocalyptic ideology – which has transformed it from “The American Policeman of the Gulf” to a leading threat to the US national security and homeland security. The conventional and ballistic capabilities of Iran – not merely a potential nuclear Iran – constitute the leading epicenter of anti-US wars, terrorism and drug trafficking.
6. It is claimed that there is no need to rush into regime-change.
Nonetheless, the 47-year-old negotiation option has bolstered the transformation of Iran to the chief threat to US interests, including homeland security. In addition, the 40-year-old option of economic sanctions has been proven to be reversible (by a succeeding President).
There is a justifiable concern about the cost of regime-change, but refraining from regime-change (which has dealt a devastating blow to the majority of Iranians, who pray for a regime-change), would erode the US posture of deterrence, produce a tailwind to anti-US Islamic terrorism, pave the road to the nuclearization of the first ever apocalyptic regime (Iran), and would trigger a horrifically costly confrontation, dwarfing the cost of regime-change.
7. Will the US perpetuate and bolster the Iranian epicenter of anti-US war and terrorism by repeating past critical mistakes (negotiation and economic sanctions), or will it minimize war and terrorism by avoiding past critical mistakes, and proceed to obliterate the Iranian epicenter (regime change)?
Will US policy makers avoid the trap of: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
Unmasking the Palestinian Authority Moshe Phillips
Terrorism is not merely tolerated but honored.
April 29, 2025 JNS – April 22, 2025, may be remembered as a turning point in the history of Israeli public diplomacy—and rightly so. On that day, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs harnessed the power of social media to expose the Palestinian Authority as the enemy it is.
From the official @Israel account on X, a powerful statement was posted: “The Palestinian Authority isn’t educating children, it’s indoctrinating them. Maps without Israel. Teachers praising martyrdom. Textbooks that glorify terror. As long as they teach hate, there’s no hope for peace. Stop ignoring it. Stop funding education that leads to terror.”
By directly attributing responsibility for the deeply rooted antisemitism prevalent in P.A.-controlled areas to Mahmoud Abbas and his co-conspirators, Israel took a vital step toward challenging the dangerous myth that a Palestinian state would lead to peace.
Prominent French public intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy took to X and explained the tragedy that the so-called two-state solution would mean.
His post was quickly retweeted by @Israel. His message deserves to be quoted in full: “If there is a moment when the two states solution is not relevant, it is today! What do we want to tell? That we reward terrorism? That what could not be achieved through peace has been achieved with pogrom? That #Hamas has brought #Israel & the free world to its knees? Come on … .”
That these posts appeared during the week of Yom Hashoah, Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, was no coincidence. More and more Israelis are acknowledging a painful reality: Whether they support Fatah or Hamas, Palestinians overwhelmingly agree that the Jewish state must be eliminated. Their only disagreements are over tactics, not goals.
What, beyond the P.A.’s institutionalized antisemitism, has prompted this new boldness from Israel on social media?
The reasons may never be fully known, but a series of alarming recent events likely played a role, many of which have gone underreported in Western media.
For example, on April 16, Wafa, the P.A.’s official news agency, marked “Palestinian Prisoners’ Day” by glorifying convicted terrorists. They accused Israel of “ongoing genocide” and “war crimes,” and in an Orwellian twist, referred to imprisoned Hamas operatives as “political prisoners.”
Then came French President Emmanuel Macron’s announcement in April that France would recognize a Palestinian state in June, while Israel is still in the midst of fighting to rescue hostages and dismantle Hamas. This move can only be seen as a betrayal.
But is Israel right about the P.A.?
Following the viral tweets, 89-year-old Mahmoud Abbas appeared to signal his choice for an intended successor by appointing Hussein al-Sheikh as vice president of the PLO.
Al-Sheikh’s record speaks for itself. At a January 2023 event celebrating “Palestinian Martyrs’ Day,” he declared: “Even if we have one penny left, it will be spent on the families of the martyrs and prisoners. … They are our purest, most permanent, loftiest and most precious jewel.”
Such words make clear that terrorism is not merely tolerated by the P.A. but honored.
Fatah and Hamas are not ideological opposites; they are partners in terror. Fatah dominates both the PLO and the Palestinian Authority, and while tensions may exist between the two factions from time to time, they typically concern tactics, not the shared goal of Israel’s destruction.
This reality was underscored in July 2024, when Hamas and Fatah representatives met in Beijing, and agreed to form a unity government following the end of the Israel-Hamas war. They released a joint statement affirming their commitment to ongoing collaboration.
The unity pact signed in Beijing leaves no doubt about the true intentions of these two terrorist organizations.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry is right: The Palestinian leadership does not want peace. What they want is Israel’s defeat.
Media Blames Jews After Muslim Mobs Attack 2 New York Synagogues by Daniel Greenfield
Hamas supporters can invade Jewish neighborhoods and still play the victim.
April 29, 2025 Frontpage Magazine – The poster urged terrorist supporters to “flood” the Jewish neighborhood of Crown Heights in Brooklyn, New York to drive out the “Zionists”.
The term “flood” was a reference to Oct 7 which Hamas called ‘Al-Aqsa Flood’.
The Hamas supporters tried to assail the main synagogue in Crown Heights which is the home of the Chabad Lubavitch Jewish movement.
Then the terrorist supporters assailed a Brooklyn synagogue used by Syrian Jewish refugees from Muslim terror.
Had Jewish protesters shown up outside a mosque, no matter who was speaking, the media would have treated it as a hate crime, but when Hamas supporters show up outside a synagogue, it’s the fault of the Jews who were walking around their own neighborhood.
The media’s takeaway all about “pro-Israel mobs”. No mention of the fellow with the “Avenge every martyr” sign.
Rep. Jerry Nadler also reacted to the Hamas rally by… condemning the Jews. “Violence is never the answer— whether by counter protesters in Brooklyn or by settlers in the West Bank.”
But violence is always the answer for terrorist supporters who can invade Jewish neighborhoods and still play the victim.
Daniel Greenfield Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.
Susan Rice and the Hidden Resistance AMUSE
APR 28, 2025
I will admit, when I first read that Susan Rice was still ensconced on the Defense Policy Board well into the new Trump administration, I thought it must surely be fake news, some hallucination conjured by an overactive internet rumor mill. Yet, with the bitter taste of disbelief still fresh, the facts became clear. Not only had she lingered, she had lingered officially, and with all the institutional imprimatur the position carries. It is the sort of stunning oversight that shakes one’s faith in the assumption that elections carry consequences.
Rice, a veteran of Obama-era foreign policy failures and perhaps best remembered for her calculatedly deceptive Sunday show performances following the Benghazi disaster, was somehow still whispering counsel into the halls of the Pentagon in 2025. Her known hostility to President Trump, his America First doctrine, and the foundational pillars of his administration did not, apparently, disqualify her. Her presence was not merely inappropriate, it was absurd, a lingering ghost from an administration the voters had quite emphatically rejected.
Thankfully, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth acted swiftly. Upon confirming the disgraceful truth, he took the only responsible course available: he discharged the entire cadre of Pentagon advisory board members, wiping the slate clean. Yet the discovery of Rice’s lingering influence opened a larger question in my mind. How many other advisory boards, spread across the vast administrative sprawl of Washington, remained populated by individuals not just ideologically distant from the president but openly hostile to his agenda?
When I dug deeper, the findings were no less alarming.
At the State Department, Thomas Donilon, a consummate Democratic insider who served as Barack Obama’s National Security Advisor, continued to co-chair the Foreign Affairs Policy Board. Donilon, whose worldview is saturated in the globalist dogmas that Trumpism explicitly rejects, was not some neutral technocrat offering dispassionate advice. He was, and remains, a committed architect of the very foreign policy status quo that voters repudiated.
Serving alongside Donilon was Cecilia Muñoz, another alumnus of the Obama White House, celebrated in progressive circles for her aggressive domestic policy advocacy. That she too advised the State Department in 2025 suggests not malevolent intent by Trump officials, but the lingering inertia of an entrenched bureaucracy and the sheer pace at which the new administration had to operate.
The situation at the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board was equally disquieting. Janet Napolitano, former Obama DHS Secretary and Democratic governor, lent her counsel, as did Evan Bayh, a loyal son of the Democratic establishment. Jane Harman, the California Democrat whose tenure on the House Intelligence Committee made her a fixture of Beltway orthodoxy, also held a seat, alongside Calvin Smyre, the “Dean” of Georgia Democrats.
It must be said: these appointments were not acts of sabotage, they were inherited artifacts of the prior administration, relics that had, perhaps through bureaucratic oversight, been allowed to persist longer than they should have. The Trump administration, moving at a breakneck pace to secure cabinet confirmations, implement executive orders, and dismantle the administrative state’s more overt structures, may not have fully cleared the decks of every board and commission.
The President’s Export Council, ostensibly a forum for economic growth, suffered from a similar inertia. Keisha Lance Bottoms, former Atlanta mayor and Democratic partisan, advised on export matters, flanked by Lacy Johnson, a Democratic operative from Indiana, Patrick Murphy, a Democratic former congressman from Florida, and Juan Verde, a Democratic strategist from the Obama Commerce Department.
These individuals are not mere advisors offering technical expertise from some neutral Olympus. They are political actors, shaped by decades of partisan struggle, invested in the success of the Democratic Party and the failure of the Republican vision for America. Their continued presence on federal advisory boards confers undeserved credibility, allowing them to subtly or not so subtly undermine the president’s directives under the guise of “expert opinion.”
Even within the Department of Defense itself, figures like Michael Bloomberg and Reid Hoffman, both prominent Democratic donors and partisans, held advisory positions on the Defense Innovation Board. Robert Wolf, famously dubbed “Obama’s Wall Street ally,” lingered on the Defense Business Board. Their appointments predated the new administration and, in the tumult of transition, may not yet have been formally revoked.
Advisory boards matter. They shape the information a president and his cabinet receive, frame the choices deemed “serious,” and create institutional momentum behind or against policy initiatives. A hostile advisor is not a harmless academic adding “diversity of thought.” He is a wedge, a saboteur in slow motion, capable of cloaking opposition in the respectable garments of “best practices” and “expertise.”
To appreciate the peril, one need only revisit George Washington’s Farewell Address, in which he warned against “the insidious wiles of foreign influence.” Today, foreign influence often enters not through emissaries but through the porous membranes of a permanent political class, credentialed, networked, and ideologically committed to resisting populist correction.
What President Trump, Secretary Hegseth, and others must recognize is that elections, though decisive at the ballot box, are never self-executing within the bureaucratic labyrinth. Personnel, as the old Reagan maxim goes, is policy. Without loyal personnel, policy becomes little more than rhetorical flourish, mocked and resisted within the very apparatus charged with carrying it out.
It is not sufficient, therefore, to appoint secretaries and department heads. The advisory bodies must be purged of those whose loyalty lies with other agendas. It is not a question of suppressing dissent or banishing disagreement. It is a question of ensuring that advice flows from those who share, at a fundamental level, the vision that voters endorsed.
Nor should we shy away from acknowledging that credibility itself is a weapon. A Donilon or a Napolitano or a Rice can, with the simple weight of a title, influence media narratives, congressional investigations, and public perceptions. The mere fact that such a figure “advises” the president creates the illusion of bipartisan concern when, in fact, what exists is partisan subversion.
The stakes are not academic. As Mark Twain once noted, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” In our era, an ill-placed advisor can seed narratives, foment resistance, and hamstring executive action before the ink on a policy directive has even dried.
The Trump administration must move swiftly to correct these oversights. A full review, department by department, board by board, is essential. Those whose affiliations, records, and loyalties stand in opposition to the constitutional mandate entrusted to President Trump must be thanked for their prior service and formally dismissed. Moreover, it is vital that these removals are publicly reported, ensuring that neither the media nor the bureaucratic establishment can operate under the false assumption that these old holdovers remain in positions of influence.
In doing so, we reaffirm a basic principle: the American people have the right to see their political choices honored not merely symbolically but operationally. Anything less is a betrayal disguised as continuity.
[Ed.: ‘Amusing,’ no?]
Life, Liberty & Levin 4/26/25 | BREAKING FOX NEW SApril 26, 2025 [32:22]
It’s Good To Be Anti-Islam [6:19] Pat Condell
April 23, 2025
Did Jeffrey Epstein Sex Victim Virginia Giuffre Commit Suicide? 2ND SMARTEST GUY IN THE WORLD
Given all of the improbable “coincidences” leading up to Jeffrey Epstein’s impossible prison “suicide,” it is common knowledge that his assassinated was orchestrated by the very same NWO globopedo Deep State that had retained his sex trafficking blackmail services for many decades.
What are the odds?:
And not only was Epstein involved in pedophilia, necromancy, organ trafficking and blackmail, he was also partaking in disturbing eugenics experiments:
Intentional Crash TIERNEY’S REAL NEWS
APR 27, 2025
A few months ago, I wrote a detailed 4-part series about the helicopter that collided with a plane near DC and provided evidence that it was likely intentional and NOT an accident. I was called all sorts of names by people – even conservatives – who called me a conspiracy nut, deranged and worse.
“Why can’t it just be an accident??” shouted one to my face.
BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE INDICATED IT WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT AND I BELIEVE IN REPORTING THE TRUTH – NOT MAKING THINGS UP SO PEOPLE FEEL BETTER!
WELL, it just came out that the female helicopter “pilot” – Rebecca Lobach – who worked at the White House with Biden – REPEATEDLY ignored orders to turn away from the American Airlines plane and flew right into it – killing 60 plus people. The New York Times just released new details about the fatal crash and it revealed that the alleged pilot, Rebecca Lobach, repeatedly ignored warnings from her co-pilot about her altitude and her course.
If you studied the evidence like I did – it was obvious that the helicopter was engineered both horizontally and vertically to purposefully crash into that plane. Either the equipment was faulty, or the pilot was faulty, or both.
The co-pilot, a male Army flight instructor, directly told her repeatedly to turn away, and she flew straight into a passenger jet.
“Not only was the Black Hawk flying too high, but its pilot failed to heed a directive from her co-pilot, an Army flight instructor, to change course.”
Sounds intentional. Sounds like MK ULTRA to me. If you haven’t read my report yet – you should read it. I believe I was one of the few to get it right. If you are one of those readers who viciously attacked me for my original premise – I hope you are honest enough to say you were wrong instead of pretending you were right all along. Thank you.
The DC helicopter-plane collision TIERNEY’S REAL NEWS FEB 2, 2025
There are many people speculating about what happened in the DC crash based on what the media is telling them. There are also many people who have concluded that the crash must be human error or an accident and could not possibly be intentional – either terrorism or sabotage.
Abraham’s Fatal Error: Are We Repeating the Same Divine Trap? By: Rabbi Elie Mischel
APRIL 27, 2025 The Israel Bible
Blood-soaked earth. Shattered families. A nation in mourning. It’s now been over 1.5 years since Hamas’ horrific attack on October 7 and the slaughter of 1200 innocent Israelis on that day. We’ve been immersed in fighting the war – it’s been all hands on deck. Every resource, every prayer, every moment has been dedicated to Israel’s survival and victory. But beyond the immediate military response, we must also reflect, as a nation, on the deeper meaning of these events.
What lessons are we meant to learn from October 7 and this long and painful war that has followed since that attack?
The Torah records a dispute between Abraham and his nephew Lot that holds remarkable parallels to our current situation.
This wasn’t a minor disagreement. Abraham and Lot both possessed significant property and considerable wealth. Both believed in the God of Abraham and wanted to settle in the same territory. Abraham faced a choice: pursue justice through strict judgment or charity through compromise.
Abraham, whose natural inclination leaned toward loving-kindness, chose charity and said to Lot:
Abraham believed that by dividing the land, he could prevent conflict. He took the western part of the Land of Israel, the Land of Canaan, while Lot settled in the cities of the plain east of the Jordan: “And Lot journeyed east… and pitched his tent toward Sodom.” (Genesis 13:12)
But here Abraham made a critical error. Who gave him permission to divide the land? God had already promised: “Unto your seed will I give this land.” (Genesis 12:7)
After Abraham’s agreement with Lot, God immediately responded:
כִּי אֶת־כָּל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּה רֹאֶה לְךָ אֶתְּנֶנָּה וּלְזַרְעֲךָ עַד־עוֹלָם׃
for I give all the land that you see to you and your offspring forever.
God’s message couldn’t be clearer. “All the land” – including the eastern portion Abraham gave to Lot – belongs exclusively to Abraham and his descendants forever. Abraham had no authority to give away any part of the divinely promised inheritance.
Immediately following this divine rebuke, war erupts in the region – the war of the four kings against the five. During this conflict, Lot is captured, forcing Abraham to take up arms:
This is the direct consequence of Abraham’s misguided territorial compromise. Had Abraham stood firm and told Lot that the entire land – including the territory east of the Jordan – belonged to him and his descendants by divine decree, Lot would never have settled in the eastern lands and become entangled in war. Instead, Abraham’s attempt to avoid conflict through land division ultimately forced him into battle (Rabbi Ouri Cherki, A Clear Thought: World and Man in Rav Kook’s Teachings, 163).
The divine lesson couldn’t be clearer. When Abraham tried to give away land that God had designated for his descendants, God engineered circumstances that forced Abraham to fight for and reclaim that very land.
The lesson for our time is unmistakable. Gaza is unquestionably part of biblical Israel, and Israel had no right to abandon it in the Gaza Disengagement of 2005. When Israel violated God’s will by giving away this sacred land, God brought about the war of October 7 which would force Israel to reconquer Gaza – just as He forced Abraham to reconquer the land he had wrongfully ceded.
God’s declaration to Abraham is clear and eternal: this land will belong to Abraham and his descendants forever. Neither the nations of the world nor Israel itself has the authority to surrender what God has decreed. The painful events since October 7 are not merely a military conflict but a divine correction, compelling Israel to reclaim what should never have been relinquished.
The Two-State solution and any plan that requires Israel to relinquish sovereignty over the Holy Land will inevitably lead to war. History has proven this repeatedly. When we attempt to divide what God has made whole, conflict follows. Gaza is the latest example of this unchanging principle. God’s will for the Land of Israel cannot be denied, negotiated, or compromised. The land promised to Abraham’s descendants is indivisible and eternal.
Rabbi Elie Mischel Rabbi Elie Mischel is the Director of Education at Israel365. Before making Aliyah in 2021, he served as the Rabbi of Congregation Suburban Torah in Livingston, NJ. He also worked for several years as a corporate attorney at Day Pitney, LLP. Rabbi Mischel received rabbinic ordination from Yeshiva University’s Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary. Rabbi Mischel also holds a J.D. from the Cardozo School of Law and an M.A. in Modern Jewish History from the Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies. He is also the editor of HaMizrachi Magazine.
Update on Epic City, Josephine Texas [1:45] Brigette Gabriel
NEWSMAX Features Brigitte Gabriel on Shariah in Texas and Beyond
APR 27, 2025 ACT FOR AMERICA
The Grand Jihad in North America ACT FOR AMERICA APR 23 Read full story
Viral Post-Stealth Jihad in Our Backyard ACT FOR AMERICA APR 20 Read full story
The Vatican’s moral decay Pope Francis failed to reform Rome Alexander Lucie-Smith
APRIL 26, 2025
The Italians have a phrase for it: “Siamo all’ultima spiaggia”, literally, we are on the last beach. They have been saying it for the last 30 years, though they now insist that this time it is really true. The money has run out. The pension crisis is looming, and all attempts to get to grips with the problem have failed. But this is not Italy we are talking about, it is the Vatican.
For decades the Roman Curia, the Church’s central organ of government, has been widely seen as unfit for purpose. One person who saw this clearly was the late Pope Francis who, in his exchange of Christmas greetings with the Curia in 2014, lambasted them for what he saw as multiple failings, including something called “spiritual Alzheimer’s”. He seemed serious about reform. Curial Christmas presents — a panettone and a bottle of prosecco each — were cancelled, and recruitment frozen. At the same time, Pope Francis instituted a dicastery for the economy, to bring all the financial departments under one roof, and put a tough Australian cardinal, George Pell, in charge of it. The soap opera seemed to be over, but in fact it was just beginning.
Pell soon found obfuscation and opposition at every turn. Monsignori lamented that they were being forced to account for every cappuccino, and stories were planted in the press about Pell’s own extravagance. The financial audit ordered by Pell was suspended by Cardinal Becciu, the sostituto, effectively the Vatican’s chief of staff. Progress stalled, and matters ended with three spectacular arrests. Pell went back to his native land to face charges of sex abuse, of which he was, after a long process, absolved. (It was believed by some Italians that the arrest and trial of Pell was orchestrated by Becciu, but this seems a stretch, even in a land addicted to conspiracy theories.) Libero Milone, the auditor, a clean pair of hands from Deloitte, was arrested by the Vatican, questioned for 12 hours and charged with espionage, or, as some might put it, merely doing his job. The charges were later dropped. But Cardinal Becciu’s triumph was short-lived. He too was arrested and, with several associates, put on trial in the Vatican for embezzlement, and found guilty. His trial was characterised by impenetrable details of a business deal concerning the ex-Harrods depository in London, and spiced up with stories about a woman, Cecilia Marogna, designated “la dama del Cardinale” (the Cardinal’s lady) who, supposedly on secret work for the Vatican, had splurged half-a-million euros of Vatican money on luxury handbags and high living.
“Cecilia Marogna, designated ‘the Cardinal’s lady’, had splurged half-a-million euros of Vatican money on luxury handbags and high living.
Two things now seem clear. The Pope had appointed reformers, and then not backed them to the hilt. As such, the Vatican remains a patchwork of conflicting fiefdoms and franchises. There’s the Secretariat of State, where Becciu was sostituto, which refused to acknowledge Pell’s authority, claiming that it was “la suprema”, answerable to no one. Meanwhile, the property portfolio, which is very valuable, is controlled by APSA, the agency that oversees the patrimony of the Holy See; much of this property brings in very little money, and is rented out below market value to Vatican employees as compensation for their poor pay. The governorate of the Vatican City State is independent of this, as is the Institute for Religious Works, better known as the Vatican Bank. And while some Vatican enterprises are bringing in cash, notably the Post Office and the Museums, others are losing it hand over fist, such as Vatican Radio. The chief income stream, Peter’s Pence, the annual collection from all Catholic churches in the world, is dwindling dramatically. The crunch is coming. In fact, it may have already arrived.
Inefficiency and corruption damage the brand, and as donations tail off, squabbling over the scraps tends to increase. The Church has still not shaken off the spectre of Roberto Calvi, “God’s Banker”, found dangling under Blackfriars Bridge in 1982. And the whiff of money laundering stubbornly endures. But the finances are only part of the wider administrative problem. In the past 12 years, Pope Francis effectively bypassed the Curia and the usual machinery of government. He appointed bishops personally, rather than through the normal processes as laid down by the dicastery for bishops. This turn to personal rule had some catastrophic results. In Argentina, all the episcopal appointments have been made by the Pope himself. In Mar del Plata, a city close to Buenos Aires, Pope Francis appointed two bishops in a row, both of whom had to resign before taking up the appointment. An interim diocesan administrator had to resign as well, when he was charged with misconduct. As for a previous bishop of Mar del Plata, he only lasted a year in his new job in another diocese. All of the appointees were well known to Pope Francis, but the vetting and due diligence were clearly insufficient.
After a time, a pattern of administrative failure emerges. In England, not an important country for the Vatican nor one Pope Francis took a close interest in, two newly appointed bishops of Portsmouth in a row resigned before taking up their appointment; this was presumably the fault of the dicastery for bishops. In Chile, there was an unseemly fight (complete with fisticuffs in the cathedral) over Pope Francis’s appointment of Bishop Barros of Osorno, who was imposed but eventually withdrawn after a long squabble which ended with all the Chilean bishops offering their resignation en masse. But the worst cases concern a man called Gustavo Zanchetta and another called Marko Rupnik. Both are accused of sexual crimes; in both cases, due process has been ignored.
Meet the Catholic conspiracists
Consider the Zanchetta case. In July 2013, Pope Francis appointed him bishop of Orán in Argentina, one of his earliest episcopal appointments. Zanchetta was well known to the pontiff, indeed a friend. Four years later, he resigned for health reasons. Zanchetta was later sent to Spain for psychological assessment and then employed in Rome working as an “assessore” in APSA, a job specially created for him. Only later did it emerge that in 2015 one of Zanchetta’s secretaries had found sexually explicit images on his cell phone, including naked selfies of Zanchetta. Evidence suggests the Pope knew about this at the time, as he had summoned Zanchetta to Rome in October 2015. However, Pope Francis believed Zanchetta’s claim that his cell phone had been hacked.
Only in January 2019 was Zanchetta suspended from his Curial position for unspecified accusations of abuse. A church investigation was ordered, and a report filed. A canonical trial of Zanchetta was announced as imminent. In June 2019, Argentine prosecutors charged Zanchetta with sexually abusing two seminarians. Later, a charge of embezzling state funds was added. The trial began in February 2022 and Zanchetta was convicted of sexual abuse and sentenced to four-and-a-half years in prison. However, the Argentine Bishops’ Conference asked for clemency and Zanchetta was allowed to serve his sentence under house arrest in a residence for retired priests. As for the canonical trial, that has disappeared from the radar, which means that Zanchetta continues to be a Catholic bishop in good standing. Who is protecting him, and why?
The Rupnik case is somewhat different, but worse. Rupnik, a well-known Slovenian celebrity priest, Jesuit and mosaic artist, is accused of sexual abuse against adults, in this case nuns who were under his spiritual direction. Rupnik has not been found guilty in a court of law, and probably never will be. However, his canonical crimes are clear. He absolved the sins of his partner in sexual sin, for which he was automatically excommunicated in 2019; nevertheless, the excommunication was almost immediately lifted, because, we are told, Rupnik repented. Moreover, because various allegations against Rupnik, received in 2019, dated back to the Nineties, they could not be investigated as there was a statute of limitations, which the Pope declined to lift. In 2020, Father Rupnik preached at the Lenten retreat in the Vatican. However, the Rupnik scandal ground on; some of the nuns went public. The Jesuits expelled him from the order for disobedience, and finally the Pope lifted the statute of limitations, to enable a canonical trial. This has not to date started, the excuse being that the appointment of judges is proving too hard. The person in charge of bringing Rupnik to justice is Cardinal Fernández, an Argentine and close collaborator of the late Pope Francis.
It was not always this way. Benedict XVI, shortly before becoming pope, spoke of driving the filth out of the Church. When he was pope, he sentenced the sexual abuser Marcial Maciel to a life of reclusion, by decree, without trial, as the Pope, an absolute monarch, can. Maciel had been protected by many during the pontificate of John Paul II, but Benedict moved against him swiftly and firmly. It can be done. But Rupnik continues to be a priest in good standing: who is protecting him, and why?
Administration, administration, administration is not quite the alluring slogan one could hope for, but it is this — the restoration of due process, and the urgent need to get things done — which will be the main challenge for the next pope. And it is decades overdue. At the tail end of the pontificate of John Paul II, who died in 2005, there was a perception that the Pope had neglected the government of the Church, thanks to his foreign travels and his long absences from his desk in the Vatican. It was hoped Benedict XVI would reform the Roman Curia, but that challenge, along with the Vatileaks scandal, defeated him, despite the promising start with Maciel. Pope Francis, too, failed to make effective changes. It’s now up to the next man. In the meantime, the Vatican is beginning to look like the Ottoman Empire in its final years, haunted by bankruptcy and the failure to reform itself.
Is there anyone who can stop the Vatican going the way of the Ottomans? Any cardinal who has run a large diocese well or governed a dicastery in the Vatican efficiently is in with a shot at becoming pope, as long as he is not too old. The trouble is that few names suggest themselves. Some of the cardinals in the running have ruled tiny dioceses, which in population terms are the size of small parishes: think of Mario Grech (Gozo, the Republic of Malta), Pierbattista Pizzaballa (Jerusalem), or even Soane Patita Paini Mafi (Tonga) and Giorgio Marengo (Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia). And since the archbishops of large dioceses like Milan and Paris are not cardinals, they will not be in the Conclave, though they could conceivably be voted for. As for Cardinal Tagle of the Philippines, who has had charge of the huge dicastery of Propaganda Fide in Rome, his administration has been less than stellar. It is this lack of experience among his rivals that puts Pope Francis’s second in command, Cardinal Parolin, Secretary of State, in pole position. He has spent the last 12 years touring the globe, and is well known to other cardinals. But many a man goes into the Conclave as pope and comes out a cardinal, and such will be the fate of Parolin. He is too associated with the controversies of Pope Francis’s reign, at a time when the Church is hoping, perhaps, to leave the Francis era behind.
The next Pope? I wish I knew. Conclaves have a habit of surprising us with little known candidates who go on to make an enormous contribution: Karol Wojtyla, John Paul II, being a prime example, and Angelo Roncalli, John XXIII, being another. All Catholics must be hoping and praying for another Wojtyla or Roncalli, someone who will change the Church, and for the better; it does not matter what sort of theologian he is; he just needs to provide a strong hand in guiding the Barque of Peter, and sail it through the stormy waters that doubtless lie ahead.
Alexander Lucie-Smith is a Catholic priest and the author of several books. His latest work is a series of stories about the Sicilian Mafia.
Unmasking the Democrats: A Judge’s Scandal Exposed [1:49:38] Mark Levin
April 25, 1025 The Mark Levin Show – On Friday’s Mark Levin Show, in Wisconsin, Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested for allegedly obstructing law enforcement by helping an illegal immigrant escape from ICE. Similarly, in New Mexico, former Judge Joel Cano was arrested for harboring an alleged illegal immigrant tied to TDA. The Democrats and their media argue these arrests highlight an overreaching Trump administration, but the Judges’ actions were illegal, not the administration’s response. Judges are not above the law. It’s absurd that Democrats frame the arrests, rather than the judges’ crimes, as the issue. The Democrat Party is an evil party. Also, Iran is unlikely to honor any negotiated deal, as they have historically failed to uphold agreements, especially after changes in U.S. leadership, such as when Trump leaves office. Some argue Iran has a right to domestic nuclear power. However, the U.S. is not negotiating with other nations that possess domestic nuclear power. The idea that Israel would drag us into war with Iran is ridiculous. Later, the efforts by the left and isolationists (Soros-Koch) to take out Pete Hegseth and Mike Waltz, and the anti-Trump media joined by Iranian special pleaders is a grave disservice to Trump and intended to undermine him. Finally, Rep Hakeem Jeffries boasted about blocking efforts to ensure only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections. Why are all Democrats opposed to proving you’re a citizen to vote?
The Supreme Court is SCREWED. [9:07]
Apr 26, 2025 MattMorseTV – Ketanji Brown Jackson: She’s an idiot.
Civil War TIERNEY’S REAL NEWS
APR 26, 2025
General Flynn published this article and it’s a view that’s rarely discussed – so I thought I would share it. As you read it – think about the implications for America.
As many of you know, Angela Merkel of Germany was famous for saying that she wanted to build an EU army and that’s why she imported so many fighting age men from 3rd world countries. Her motive for “helping the poor immigrant” was not a humanitarian one – it was so they could die to protect HER country. The motive behind LBJ’s “new society” was the same – he changed the draft rules so he could force MORE young black men and Hispanic men to die for him in Vietnam.
I believe that’s one of the reasons why the left has opened America’s borders wide as well – to bring in fighting-aged men for an eventual draft – just like they are doing in Ukraine. It’s not just for votes and cheap labor – it’s also for the military. In fact, Ukraine has drafted so many men that they are now rounding up women off the streets to die for their war with Russia.
