quinta-feira, 21 de maio de 2020

China: Tudo Começou com "Xadrez Diplomático"



Kissinger e companhia disseram a Richard Nixon: ei, que tal a gente usar a China comunista contra a     União Soviética? Eles começaram a brigar por poder comunista no mundo e pela Manchúria. A gente pode piorar a relação da China e da URSS e assim conseguir que a URSS diminua suas preocupações nucleares contra a gente. Vamos jogar com a desconfiança deles.

Era o xadrez diplomático que fez Kissinger ficar famoso

Na época, a China estava em plena Revolução Cultural matando centenas de milhares dos próprios chineses, por espancamento ou engolindo pregos, para que todos dissessem que Mao Tse Tung era o "sol que nunca se punha". 

E, by the way, estava ocorrendo a guerra do Vietnã, na época, em que a China e a URSS forneciam apoio aos comunistas.

Passando por cima de tudo isso, Nixon aceitou a proposta dos seus auxiliares e "abriu as portas da China" em 1972 (foto acima) e se encontrou com Mao Tse Tung.

O historiador Niall Fergusson diz que o encontro de Nixon com Mao Tse Tung foi uma festa, com direito à visita à muralha da China e banda chinesa tocando música americana

A visita de 72 tem até filme e Nixon compara sua visita à China à chegada do homem na lua!!! Era ano de eleição, o que explica um pouco a viagem e as palavras de auto exaltação. Nixon iria ganhar a reeleição com vasta vantagem, mas renunciaria para não sofrer impeachment em 1974



A China é até hoje comunista, a URSS não existe mais. A ação do xadrez diplomático de Kissinger deu certo?

Hoje, o mundo dito capitalista depende da China comunista. Na minha visão, Mao enganou Stalin, depois enganou Nixon e a China continua enganando. Atualmente, Francisco anda brincando com a China também.

Um erro gigantesco na vida de uma pessoa por vezes começam com uma ilusão, uma festa, um sorriso, uma brincadeira aparentemente inocente. Ao que parece, pode ocorrer com estados também.

Hoje, em plena pandemia chinesa o atual presidente dos Estados Unidos diz que a China manipula informação para se livrar dos seus terríveis erros na condução da pandemia. Bom, mas o que se esperar de uma ditadura? Se tem um tipo de governo que precisa de estrito controle de informações é uma ditadura.




quarta-feira, 20 de maio de 2020

Trump diz a ONU para Parar de Promover Aborto na Pandemia


A ONU, não satisfeita com as mortes do vírus chinês, promove ainda mais mortes por meio de uma pandemia ainda mais gigantesca: aborto. 

E o Vaticano continua apoiando esse antro.

 A administração Trump, por meio do chefe da agência americana para desenvolvimento  internacional,  USAID, John Barsa, enviou carta ao Secretário Geral da ONU, o português Antonio Guterres,  dizendo que a ONU deve parar de "cinicamente " promover o aborto durante a pandemia.

Aqui vai, traduzido, parte da carta de Barsa. Ele disse:

" O Plano Global de Resposta Humanitária da ONU e seu apelo coordenado de US $ 6,71 bilhões devem permanecer focados em atender às necessidades mais urgentes e concretas que surgem da pandemia.

Portanto, a ONU não deve usar essa crise como uma oportunidade para promover o acesso ao aborto como um "serviço essencial". 

Infelizmente, o documento  faz exatamente isso, colocando cinicamente a provisão de "serviços de saúde sexual e reprodutiva" no mesmo nível de importância que a insegurança alimentar, os cuidados de saúde essenciais, a desnutrição, o abrigo e o saneamento. O mais notório é que o o documento pede a ampla distribuição de medicamentos e suprimentos indutores de aborto e a promoção do aborto nos locais dos países.

Sob a liderança do presidente Donald J. Trump, os Estados Unidos deixaram claro que "nunca nos cansaremos de defender a vida inocente". 

O presidente Trump disse em seu discurso à 74ª Assembléia Geral da ONU que a ONU simplesmente não tem "que atacar soberania das nações que desejam proteger a vida inocente". 

De fato, a ONU não deve intimidar ou coagir os Estados Membros comprometidos com o direito à vida. Usar a pandemia do COVID-19 como justificativa para pressionar os governos a mudar suas leis é uma afronta à autonomia de cada sociedade para determinar suas próprias políticas nacionais de assistência à saúde. Os Estados Unidos estão com nações que se comprometeram a proteger os nascituros.

Para alcançar a unidade global em direção a esse objetivo, é essencial que a resposta da ONU à pandemia evite criar controvérsias. Portanto, peço que você remova referências à "saúde sexual e reprodutiva" e seus derivados do documento e descarte o fornecimento de aborto como um componente essencial das prioridades da ONU para responder à pandemia do COVID-19."


Aqui vai a carta da USAID na íntegra:

ACTING ADMINISTRATOR JOHN BARSA LETTER TO UN SECRETARY GENERAL GUTERRES

For Immediate Release

Monday, May 18, 2020
Office of Press Relations

 
The Honorable
António Guterres
The United Nations Secretary-General
United Nations Headquarters
New York, NY 10017

Dear Mr. Secretary-General:

Thank you for your continued efforts to advance the purposes and principles of the United Nations (UN), including the sovereign equality of all its Member States, which the UN Charter established decades ago.

As the largest donor of global health and humanitarian assistance, the United States always has led the world through times of strife, turmoil, and uncertainty. The current pandemic of COVID-19 is no different. Thus far, of the $650.7 million allocated from supplemental funding by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to combat the pandemic globally, we have provided $45.3 million to UN agencies. This is a fraction of USAID’s overall financial support for the UN’s activities, which in Fiscal Year 2019 totaled more than $3.5 billion in funds disbursed.

As the UN and Member States around the world work to address the pandemic of COVID-19, I urge you, your staff, and the UN’s funds, programs, and specialized and technical agencies to stay focused on life-saving interventions. The delivery of essential health care is the first priority around the globe during this time. In addition, severe food shortages could represent a second, deadly impact of the pandemic in many countries. The UN’s Global Humanitarian Response Plan (Global HRP), and its $6.71 billion coordinated appeal, must remain focused on addressing the most urgent, concrete needs that are arising out of the pandemic.

Therefore, the UN should not use this crisis as an opportunity to advance access to abortion as an “essential service.” Unfortunately, the Global HRP does just this, by cynically placing the provision of "sexual and reproductive health services" on the same level of importance as food-insecurity, essential health care, malnutrition, shelter, and sanitation. Most egregious is that the Global HRP calls for the widespread distribution of abortion-inducing drugs and abortion supplies, and for the promotion of abortion in local country settings.

Under the leadership of President Donald J. Trump, the United States has made clear that we will “never tire of defending innocent life.” President Trump said in his address to the 74th UN General Assembly that the UN simply has “no business attacking the sovereignty of nations that wish to protect innocent life.” Indeed, the UN should not intimidate or coerce Member States that are committed to the right to life. To use the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification to pressure governments to change their laws is an affront to the autonomy of each society to determine its own national policies on health care. The United States stands with nations that have pledged to protect the unborn.

To achieve global unity toward this goal, it is essential that the UN’s response to the pandemic avoid creating controversy. Therefore, I ask that you remove references to "sexual and reproductive health," and its derivatives from the Global HRP, and drop the provision of abortion as an essential component of the UN’s priorities to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Member States are deeply divided over the use of the term “sexual and reproductive health” and its derivatives, and it is among the most polarizing issues raised in UN negotiations. The Global HRP, and the activities of UN agencies and bodies moving forward, should use clear language and take clear action to address the real needs of vulnerable people around the world without promoting abortion. Now is not the time to add unnecessary discord to the COVID-19 response.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. The United States remains committed to working with you to preserve human life and defeat the pandemic of COVID-19. I wish you good health and safety during these challenging days.

Sincerely yours,
John Barsa

Cc: The Honorable Kelly Craft, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations


https://c-fam.org/friday_fax/usaid-head-to-un-secretary-general-stop-peddling-abortion-as-covid-19-relief/?fbclid=IwAR1pr0bKh7CZSrFl-J-36uiGOA7EjiciQXG35XIQKVCdlFP9l8jh0BD3KNM


terça-feira, 19 de maio de 2020

Carta de Trump para Dr. Tedros (OMS). Ele não Poupa a China.



Trump divulgou ontem carta que escreveu para Dr. Tedros (diretor da OMS). Na carta, Trump detona o comportamento da OMS durante a pandemia, recontando cronologicamente como a OMS tratou a ameaça do coronavirus sob a ditadura chinesa. Trump também não poupa a China, em nada, absolutamente nada, fala até de ações discriminatórias contra negros africanos.

Ao fim, Trump ameaça:

"Está claro que os erros repetidos por você e sua organização ao responder à pandemia têm sido extremamente onerosos para o mundo. O único caminho a seguir para a Organização Mundial da Saúde é se ela pode realmente demonstrar independência da China. Minha administração já iniciou discussões com você sobre como reformar a organização. Mas é preciso agir rapidamente. Não temos tempo a perder. É por isso que é meu dever, como Presidente dos Estados Unidos, informá-lo que, se a Organização Mundial da Saúde não se comprometer com grandes melhorias substanciais nos próximos 30 dias, farei meu congelamento temporário do financiamento dos Estados Unidos para o Organização Mundial da Saúde permanente e reconsidere nossa participação na organização. Não posso permitir que os dólares dos contribuintes americanos continuem financiando uma organização que, em seu estado atual, claramente não atende aos interesses da América."

Aqui vai a carta de Trump:

Dear Dr. Tedros:

On April 14, 2020, I suspended United States contributions to the World Health Organization pending an investigation by my Administration of the organization’s failed response to the COVID-19 outbreak. This review has confirmed many of the serious concerns I raised last month and identified others that the World Health Organization should have addressed, especially the World Health Organization’s alarming lack of independence from the People’s Republic of China. Based on this review, we now know the following:

•The World Health Organization consistently ignored credible reports of the virus spreading in Wuhan in early December 2019 or even earlier, including reports from the Lancet medical journal. The World Health Organization failed to independently investigate credible reports that conflicted directly with the Chinese government’s official accounts, even those that came from sources within Wuhan itself.

• By no later than December 30, 2019, the World Health Organization office in Beijing knew that there was a “major public health” concern in Wuhan. Between December 26 and December 30, China’s media highlighted evidence of a new virus emerging from Wuhan, based on patient data sent to multiple Chinese genomics companies. Additionally, during this period, Dr. Zhang Jixian, a doctor from Hubei Provincial Hospital of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine, told China’s health authorities that a new coronavirus was causing a novel disease that was, at the time, afflicting approximately 180 patients.

• By the next day, Taiwanese authorities had communicated information to the World Health Organization indicating human-to-human transmission of a new virus. Yet the World Health Organization chose not to share any of this critical information with the rest of the world, probably for political reasons.

• The International Health Regulations require countries to report the risk of a health emergency within 24 hours. But China did not inform the World Health Organization of Wuhan’s several cases of pneumonia, of unknown origin, until December 31, 2019, even though it likely had knowledge of these cases days or weeks earlier.

• According to Dr. Zhang Yongzhen of the Shanghai Public Health Clinic Center, he told Chinese authorities on January 5, 2020, that he had sequenced the genome of the virus. There was no publication of this information until six days later, on January 11, 2020, when Dr. Zhang self-posted it online. The next day, Chinese authorities closed his lab for “rectification.” As even the World Health Organization acknowledged, Dr. Zhang’s posting was a great act of “transparency.” But the World Health Organization has been conspicuously silent both with respect to the closure of Dr. Zhang’s lab and his assertion that he had notified Chinese authorities of his breakthrough six days earlier.

• The World Health Organization has repeatedly made claims about the coronavirus that were either grossly inaccurate or misleading.

- On January 14, 2020, the World Health Organization gratuitously reaffirmed China’s now-debunked claim that the coronavirus could not be transmitted between humans, stating: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCov) identified in Wuhan, China.” This assertion was in direct conflict with censored reports from Wuhan.

- On January 21, 2020, President Xi Jinping of China reportedly pressured you not to declare the coronavirus outbreak an emergency. You gave in to this pressure the next day and told the world that the coronavirus did not pose a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Just over one week later, on January 30, 2020, overwhelming evidence to the contrary forced you to reverse course.

- On January 28, 2020, after meeting with President Xi in Beijing, you praised the Chinese government for its “transparency” with respect to the coronavirus, announcing that China had set a “new standard for outbreak control” and “bought the world time.” You did not mention that China had, by then, silenced or punished several doctors for speaking out about the virus and restricted Chinese institutions from publishing information about it.

• Even after you belatedly declared the outbreak a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on January 30, 2020, you failed to press China for the timely admittance of a World Health Organization team of international medical experts. As a result, this critical team did not arrive in China until two weeks later, on February 16, 2020. And even then, the team was not allowed to visit Wuhan until the final days of their visit. Remarkably, the World Health Organization was silent when China denied the two American members of the team access to Wuhan entirely.

• You also strongly praised China’s strict domestic travel restrictions, but were inexplicably against my closing of the United States border, or the ban, with respect to people coming from China. I put the ban in place regardless of your wishes. Your political gamesmanship on this issue was deadly, as other governments, relying on your comments, delayed imposing life-saving restrictions on travel to and from China. Incredibly, on February 3, 2020, you reinforced your position, opining that because China was doing such a great job protecting the world from the virus, travel restrictions were “causing more harm than good.” Yet by then the world knew that, before locking down Wuhan, Chinese authorities had allowed more than five million people to leave the city and that many of these people were bound for international destinations all over the world.

• As of February 3, 2020, China was strongly pressuring countries to lift or forestall travel restrictions. This pressure campaign was bolstered by your incorrect statements on that day telling the world that the spread of the virus outside of China was “minimal and slow” and that “the chances of getting this going to anywhere outside China [were] very low.”

• On March 3, 2020, the World Health Organization cited official Chinese data to downplay the very serious risk of asymptomatic spread, telling the world that “COVID-19 does not transmit as efficiently as influenza” and that unlike influenza this disease was not primarily driven by “people who are infected but not yet sick.” China’s evidence, the World Health Organization told the world, “showed that only one percent of reported cases do not have symptoms, and most of those cases develop symptoms within two days.” Many experts, however, citing data from Japan, South Korea, and elsewhere, vigorously questioned these assertions. It is now clear that China’s assertions, repeated to the world by the World Health Organization, were wildly inaccurate.

• By the time you finally declared the virus a pandemic on March 11, 2020, it had killed more than 4,000 people and infected more than 100,000 people in at least 114 countries around the world.

• On April 11, 2020, several African Ambassadors wrote to the Chinese Foreign Ministry about the discriminatory treatment of Africans related to the pandemic in Guangzhou and other cities in China. You were aware that Chinese authorities were carrying out a campaign of forced quarantines, evictions, and refusal of services against the nationals of these countries. You have not commented on China’s racially discriminatory actions. You have, however, baselessly labeled as racist Taiwan’s well-founded complaints about your mishandling of this pandemic.

• Throughout this crisis, the World Health Organization has been curiously insistent on praising China for its alleged “transparency.” You have consistently joined in these tributes, notwithstanding that China has been anything but transparent. In early January, for example, China ordered samples of the virus to be destroyed, depriving the world of critical information. Even now, China continues to undermine the International Health Regulations by refusing to share accurate and timely data, viral samples and isolates, and by withholding vital information about the virus and its origins. And, to this day, China continues to deny international access to their scientists and relevant facilities, all while casting blame widely and recklessly and censoring its own experts.

• The World Health Organization has failed to publicly call on China to allow for an independent investigation into the origins of the virus, despite the recent endorsement for doing so by its own Emergency Committee. The World Health Organization’s failure to do so has prompted World Health Organization member states to adopt the “COVID-19 Response” Resolution at this year’s World Health Assembly, which echoes the call by the United States and so many others for an impartial, independent, and comprehensive review of how the World Health Organization handled the crisis. The resolution also calls for an investigation into the origins of the virus, which is necessary for the world to understand how best to counter the disease.

Perhaps worse than all these failings is that we know that the World Health Organization could have done so much better. Just a few years ago, under the direction of a different Director-General, the World Health Organization showed the world how much it has to offer. In 2003, in response to the outbreak of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in China, Director-General Harlem Brundtland boldly declared the World Health Organization’s first emergency travel advisory in 55 years, recommending against travel to and from the disease epicenter in southern China. She also did not hesitate to criticize China for endangering global health by attempting to cover up the outbreak through its usual playbook of arresting whistleblowers and censoring media. Many lives could have been saved had you followed Dr. Brundtland’s example.

It is clear the repeated missteps by you and your organization in responding to the pandemic have been extremely costly for the world. The only way forward for the World Health Organization is if it can actually demonstrate independence from China. My Administration has already started discussions with you on how to reform the organization. But action is needed quickly. We do not have time to waste. That is why it is my duty, as President of the United States, to inform you that, if the World Health Organization does not commit to major substantive improvements within the next 30 days, I will make my temporary freeze of United States funding to the World Health Organization permanent and reconsider our membership in the organization. I cannot allow American taxpayer dollars to continue to finance an organization that, in its present state, is so clearly not serving America’s interests.




segunda-feira, 18 de maio de 2020

116 Países Apoiam Investigação contra China.


Ontem, eu li, no Business Insider,  que a China reconheceu que ordenou a destruição das amostra de coronavirus nos laboratórios do país, como acusou os Estados Unidos. Mas disse que a destruição foi para o nosso bem. Believe it or not!

Liu Dengfeng, um funcionário do departamento de ciência e educação da Comissão Nacional de Saúde da China, disse em uma entrevista coletiva em Pequim na sexta-feira que as amostras foram destruídas para "evitar o risco à segurança biológica do laboratório e evitar desastres secundários causados por patógenos não identificados".

Enquanto o mundo já contabiliza mais de 315 mil mortes pelo coronavirus, quase 90 mil só nos Estados Unidos, a China continua controlando investigações sobre a doença em seu país.


O projeto de resolução na Assembléia Mundial da Saúde foi apresentado pela União Européia. Define uma série de medidas que precisam ser tomadas em relação ao COVID-19, uma revisão entre elas, e um exame das origens do próprio coronavírus. Uma moção no projeto de resolução solicita que o diretor geral da OMS, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, trabalhe em estreita colaboração com a Organização Mundial de Saúde Animal para “identificar a fonte zoonótica do vírus. A moção também solicita um exame da via de introdução à população humana, incluindo o possível papel dos hospedeiros intermediários.

O projeto não diz que a investigação deve ser feita na China, apenas se supõe isso.

O projeto de resolução da UE agora conta com 116 co-patrocinadores, depois que todo o Grupo Africano e seus estados membros aderiram à lista inicial de 62 países, incluindo Austrália, Rússia, Reino Unido e Japão.

Os países que agora apoiam o inquérito são Albânia, Austrália, Bangladesh, Bielorrússia, Butão, Brasil, Canadá, Chile, Colômbia, Djibuti, República Dominicana, Equador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guiana, Islândia, Índia, Indonésia, Japão, Jordânia, Cazaquistão , Malásia, Maldivas, México, Mônaco, Montenegro, Nova Zelândia, Macedônia do Norte, Noruega, Paraguai, Peru, Catar, República da Coréia, República da Moldávia, Federação Russa, São Marinho, Arábia Saudita, o Grupo Africano e seus Estados-Membros, União Europeia e seus Estados-Membros, Tunísia, Turquia, Ucrânia e Reino Unido da Grã-Bretanha e Irlanda do Norte.

Os Estados Unidos não aparecem entre os signatários. O Daily Wire avalia que é porque os Estados Unidos querem mais supervisão ou ainda mais foco na China e no papel que os chineses  desempenharam no vírus que se espalhou pelo mundo.

Ao que parece os Estados Unidos ainda não estão satisfeitos com a resolução da União Europeia.



sábado, 16 de maio de 2020

Maçonaria Italiana Declara Apoio a Documento de Francisco






Vocês lembram daquele documento de Abu Dhabi, assinado por Francisco e por um líder religioso muçulmano? No documento, Francisco diz que Deus "deseja" que as pessoas tenham várias religiões.

Em suma, usando a lógica, Francisco nos diz com o documento que a morte e ressurreição de Cristo foi pura perda de tempo.

Bom, a maçonaria italiana adorou o documento e declarou exaltado apoio.

O apoio da maçonaria italiana é meio que óbvio, uma vez que a maçonaria no mundo todo prega um "humanismo" ateu. O documento assinado por Francisco vai na mesma linha. A maçonaria chama o documento de "inovador" e importante para a "liberação lenta" em direção a uma "nova era" para todos que "têm capacidade de raciocinar".

A maçonaria usa o documento para condenar os católicos que acham que têm um religião especial ou que acham que fazem parte de uma nobreza religiosa. Pede até que a Igreja expulse os católicos que pensem assim. Hummm...acho que Francisco vai concordar com essa condenação da maçonaria, infelizmente. Ele falou disso inúmeras vezes.

A maçonaria ver o mundo em progresso e para justificar isso tem uma visão distorcida da histórias das religiões e agrega documentos políticos que gostam como Declaração de Independência dos Estados Unidos e Carta da ONU a sua teoria religiosa. Esquecendo os aspectos históricos e documentos de que não gosta.

Este apoio da maçonaria italiana foi relatado pelo renomada jornalista inglês Edward Petin no seu site. Como esclarece Pentin, a Igreja Católica condena a Maçonaria há muito tempo, enfatizando que seus princípios são inconciliáveis ​​com a fé católica e ensinando que para um católico pertencer a ela é um "pecado grave" que automaticamente o desqualifica de receber a Comunhão. O Papa Clemente XII decretou em 1738 que aqueles que se uniram aos maçons fossem excomungados, embora desde o Código de Direito Canônico de 1983 essa pena não se aplique mais. Os rituais maçônicos são hostis ao catolicismo e um forte anticatolicismo também permeia a Maçonaria. Alguns dizem que há adoração a satanás entre membros de alto escalão.

Pentin disse que o bispo Athanasius Schneider afirmou que o papa Pio VII, em sua encíclica Traditi Humilitati Nostrae, publicada em 1829, "deu uma das definições mais sucintas e precisas da ideologia e obra da Maçonaria, afirmando: 'Sua lei é mentira, seu deus é o diabo, e seu culto é a tormenta. "

O Bispo Schneider também apontou que um princípio fundamental da Maçonaria é criar o caos, e a partir desse caos, criar sua própria ordem. "Significativamente", disse ele, "um dos lemas ideológicos e estratégicos da Maçonaria é: ordo ab chao ".

Aqui vai a tradução de parte do texto de Edward Pentin:


Revista Maçonaria Italiana endossa fortemente o documento de fraternidade humana do Papa Francisco

Um documento sobre a fraternidade humana, que o Papa Francisco e o Sheik Ahmed el-Tayeb, grã-imã da universidade Al-Azhar, assinaram no ano passado em Abu Dhabi, recebeu um aval da revista da maior loja maçônica da Itália.

A maçomaria considerou que o Documento sobre Fraternidade Humana pela Paz Mundial e Viver Juntos de Francisco é "inovador" e um "medicamento de liberação lenta" que poderia anunciar uma "nova era" e representar um "ponto de virada para uma nova civilização", escreve Pierluigi Cascioli, jornalista da Nuovo Hiram, a revista trimestral da loja maçônica Grand Orient na Itália. 

Ele acrescenta que o texto "é importante por causa das duas assinaturas conjuntas autorizadas e por seu conteúdo".

O documento de Francisco de cinco páginas foi elogiado quando foi publicado como um esforço para recuar da ideia de "choque de civilizações", mas também recebeu críticas por seus elementos sincréticos e uma passagem controversa que afirmava a "diversidade de religiões "são" desejadas por Deus ".

Os críticos disseram que as palavras pareciam contradizer a crença central da Igreja de que a fé cristã é a única religião válida e a única vontade de Deus através da qual o homem pode ser salvo e que Deus, sendo a própria verdade, não pode ter falsas religiões.

Em seu artigo, Cascioli recomenda dar ao documento uma "leitura completa" e argumentar que propõe "valores capazes de construir um mundo melhor". O documento, ele escreve, tem "páginas nobres" que "devem ser cuidadosamente consideradas" não apenas por cristãos, católicos, muçulmanos e sunitas, mas por toda a humanidade.

"O apelo por uma maior fraternidade é dirigido a toda a humanidade, até mesmo os cinco bilhões de pessoas que não compartilham uma de suas duas fés", continua Cascioli, acrescentando que acredita que o apelo "é baseado nas crenças dos autores do documento bem como aqueles que têm a "capacidade de raciocinar". É um "apelo a todos", escreve ele.

Cascioli se pergunta quantos membros da Igreja ou do Islã leram o documento que ele vê como um incentivo à Igreja e ao Islã para "fazer mais para garantir que haja uma igualdade efetiva entre homens e mulheres".

Referindo-se ao prefácio do Documento, ele pergunta se sua condenação à discriminação e seu pedido de "respeito mútuo" levará ao "respeito por mulheres e homens que têm tendências homossexuais ou bissexuais?"

A maçonaria disse que todo ser humano é único e inimitável e deve ter "o direito (ou, melhor, o dever) de experimentar seu próprio erotismo de acordo com sua própria natureza ". Ele então se refere às nações que criminalizam a homossexualidade, particularmente no mundo islâmico.

Ele se concentra no documento que afirma que "Deus criou todos os seres humanos iguais em direitos, deveres e dignidade" e o usa para criticar alguns católicos por fazer parte de uma nobreza católica, ou como Cascioli lê: "Diferente de outros seres humanos na sensação de ser superior aos outros ". Ele se pergunta se os católicos continuarão a "aceitar a nobreza católica" quando o documento de Abu Dhabi "indicar repetidamente que todos os seres humanos são iguais em dignidade" e até especula que a Igreja possa expulsar a nobreza que não aceitará esse igualitarismo.

Ele ainda se pergunta se a estrutura "monárquica" da Igreja está em desacordo com o igualitarismo que vê no documento e especula se a doutrina social da Igreja precisará ser "atualizada" à "luz dos valores inovadores do documento". "

O Papa Francisco e o Grão-Imam expressam "posições de vanguarda", ele observa, e se pergunta quantos católicos e muçulmanos os seguirão. "A que distância de suas respectivas 'bases' estão os dois líderes?" Musas de Cascioli. "O Papa Francisco está longe de sua base; o Grand Imam está muito longe dele. "

Mas ele prefere ter uma visão de longo prazo, acreditando que o documento da Fraternidade Humana é "como uma droga de liberação lenta". Seria "ilusório esperar uma grande revolta imediata, mas poderia abrir uma nova era", argumenta ele. Cascioli diz que Francis e el-Tayeb "construíram uma pista de aeroporto" para os valores do documento, mas para que o conteúdo "decole", deve haver um "forte impulso" que permita "superar a força da gravidade". As pessoas devem ter a "coragem da fraternidade", diz ele, e assim "decolar em direção a um mundo melhor".

Se implementado, ele vê o Documento como "um ponto de virada para a civilização, porque abrirá uma nova era". Cascioli então passa pelo que ele chama de várias "épocas espirituais", ou camadas da civilização, começando pelo que ele chama de "religiões míticas pré-cristãs" (paganismo), até o Iluminismo, Martin Luther, a Declaração de Independência dos EUA, a constituição. das Nações Unidas (que ele nota ter sido inventado pelo "presidente maçom dos EUA, Roosevelt", e levado a bom termo pelo presidente Truman, "também maçom"). Ele então inclui o Concílio Ecumênico Vaticano II, quando a Igreja "mais uma vez acreditou no respeito à liberdade de consciência de todo ser humano, como havia feito nos primeiros quatro séculos".

Cascioli vê uma grande promessa para o Documento, comparando-o a um "cogumelo no pasto", parte de uma crescente "conscientização" da humanidade ", nutrida por uma consciência humana mais elevada".

"Os maçons, que têm a fraternidade no centro, não poderão evitar discutir este documento", acredita ele, e chama a atenção para a página quatro, na qual enfatiza a importância de "adotar uma cultura de diálogo".

"Ao aplicar esse princípio, católicos e sunitas vão querer dialogar com os maçons?" Cascioli perguntou





sexta-feira, 15 de maio de 2020

Bento XVI Escreve Carta para 100 anos de Nascimento de João Paulo II


Bento XVI resolveu escrever carta aos bispos poloneses para a celebração de 100 anos de nascimento de São João Paulo II, que se completam no próximo dia 18 de maio.

Claro que São João Paulo II merece todas as celebrações.  No século XX, entre os papas, quem foi maior do que ele? Talvez Pio X e Pio XII. Mas ele está entre os três.

Eu gostei da carta de Bento XVI?

Bom, na minha humilíssima opinião, é uma boa carta.. Eu teria apenas três sugestões, se me permitem:

1) Correção de um ero histórico: Bento XVI disse que os sociólogos viam Paulo XVI, na época de seu pontificado, como o Gorbachev da Igreja. Mas acontece que Gorbachev só começou a governar em 1985, já era pontificado de João Paulo II. Acho que tirando a expressão "At that time" pode resolver, caso os sociólogos realmente pensassem assim;

2) Ele iguala a misericórdia de João Paulo II com aquela de Francisco. Não acho que faz jus a João Paulo II;

3) Acho que ele poderia ter exaltado mais o Papa Gregório Magno. 

Mas é uma boa carta. Aqui vai a carta de Bento XVI disponibilizada no site National Catholic Register. Eu marco os deslizes que identifiquei em negrito, para vocês tirarem suas dúvidas por vocês mesmos. 

Mas Viva São João Paulo II!

Full Text: Pope Benedict XVI’s Letter Marking St. John Paul II’s Birth Centenary

100 years ago, on May 18th, Pope John Paul II was born in the small Polish town of Wadowice.

After having been divided for over 100 years by three neighboring major powers of Prussia, Russia, and Austria, Poland regained Her independence at the end of the First World War. It was a historic event that gave birth to great hope; but it also demanded much hardship as the new State, in the process of Her reorganization, continued to feel the pressure of the two Powers of Germany and Russia. In this situation of oppression, but above all in this situation marked by hope, young Karol Wojtyła grew up. He lost his mother and his brother quite early and, in the end, his father as well, from whom he gained deep and warm piety. The young Karol was particularly drawn by literature and theater. After passing his final secondary school exam, he chose to study these subjects.

“In order to avoid the deportation, in the fall of 1940 he went to work in a quarry of the Solvay chemical plant.” (cf. Gift and Mystery). “In the fall of 1942, he made the final decision to enter the Seminary of Kraków, which Kraków’s Archbishop Sapieha had secretly established in his residence. As a factory worker, Karol already started studying theology in old textbooks; and so, on 1 November 1946, he could be ordained a priest.” (cf. Ibid.) Of course, Karol not only studied theology in books but also through his experience of the difficult situation that he and his Country found itself in. This is somewhat a characteristic of his whole life and work. He studied books but the questions that they posed became the reality that he profoundly experienced and lived. As a young Bishop — as an Auxiliary Bishop since 1958 and then Archbishop of Kraków from 1964 — the Second Vatican Council became the school of his entire life and work. The important questions that appeared, especially in connection with the so-called Schema 13 which would subsequently become the Constitution Gaudium et Spes, were questions that were also his own. The answers developed by the Council would pave the way for his mission  as Bishop and, later, as Pope.

When Cardinal Wojtyła was elected Successor of St. Peter on 16 October 1978, the Church was in a dramatic situation. The deliberations of the Council had been presented to the public as a dispute over the Faith itself, which seemed to deprive the Council of its infallible and unwavering sureness. A Bavarian parish priest, for example, commented on the situation by saying, “In the end, we fell into the wrong faith.” This feeling that nothing was no longer certain, that everything was questioned, was kindled even more by the method of implementation of liturgical reform. In the end, it almost seemed that the liturgy could be created of itself. Paul VI brought the Council to an end with energy and determination, but after its conclusion, he faced ever more pressing problems that ultimately questioned the existence of the Church Herself. At that time, sociologists compared the Church’s situation to the situation of the Soviet Union under the rule of Gorbachev, during which the powerful structure of the Soviet State collapsed under the process of its reform.

Therefore, in essence, an almost impossible task was awaiting the new Pope. Yet, from the first moment on, John Paul II aroused new enthusiasm for Christ and his Church. His words from the sermon at the inauguration of his pontificate: “Do not be afraid! Open, open wide the doors for Christ!” This call and tone would characterize his entire pontificate and made him a liberating restorer of the Church. This was conditioned by the fact that the new Pope came from a country where the Council’s reception had been positive: one of a joyful renewal of everything rather than an attitude of doubt and uncertainty in all.

The Pope traveled the world, having made 104 pastoral voyages, proclaiming the Gospel wherever he went as a message of joy, explaining in this way the obligation to defend what is Good and to be for Christ.

In his 14 Encyclicals, he comprehensively presented the faith of the Church and its teaching in a human way. By doing this, he inevitably sparked contradiction in Church of the West, clouded by doubt and uncertainty.

It seems important today to define the true centre, from the perspective of which we can read the message contained in the various texts. We could have noticed it at the hour of his death. Pope John Paul II died in the first moments of the newly established Feast of Divine Mercy. Let me first add a brief personal remark that seems an important aspect of the Pope’s nature and work. From the very beginning, John Paul II was deeply touched by the message of Faustina Kowalska, a nun from Kraków, who emphasized Divine Mercy as an essential center of the Christian faith. She had hoped for the establishment of such a feast day. After consultation, the Pope chose the Second Sunday of Easter. However, before the final decision was made, he asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to express its view on the appropriateness of this date. We responded negatively because such an ancient, traditional and meaningful date like the Sunday “in Albis” concluding the Octave of Easter should not be burdened with modern ideas. It was certainly not easy for the Holy Father to accept our reply. Yet, he did so with great humility and accepted our negative response a second time. Finally, he formulated a proposal that left the Second Sunday of Easter in its historical form but included Divine Mercy in its original message. There have often been similar cases in which I was impressed by the humility of this great Pope, who abandoned ideas he cherished because he could not find the approval of the official organs that must be asked according established norms.

When John Paul II took his last breaths on this world, the prayer of the First Vespers of the Feast of Divine Mercy had just ended. This illuminated the hour of his death: the light of God’s mercy stands as a comforting message over his death. In his last book Memory and Identity, which was published on the eve of his death, the Pope once again summarized the message of Divine Mercy. He pointed out that Sister Faustina died before the horrors of the Second World War but already gave the Lord’s answer to all this unbearable strife. It was as if Christ wanted to say through Faustina: “Evil will not get the final victory. The mystery of Easter affirms that good will ultimately be victorious, that life will triumph over death, and that love will overcome hatred”.

Throughout his life, the Pope sought to subjectively appropriate the objective center of Christian faith, the doctrine of salvation, and to help others to make it theirs. Through the resurrected Christ, God’s mercy is intended for every individual. Although this center of Christian existence is given to us only in faith, it is also philosophically significant, because if God’s mercy were not a fact, then we would have to find our way in a world where the ultimate power of good against evil is not recognizable. It is finally, beyond this objective historical significance, indispensable for everyone to know that in the end God’s mercy is stronger than our weakness. Moreover, at this point, the inner unity of the message of John Paul II and the basic intentions of Pope Francis can also be found: John Paul II is not the moral rigorist as some have partially portrayed him. With the centrality of divine mercy, he gives us the opportunity to accept moral requirement for man, even if we can never fully meet it. Besides, our moral endeavors are made in the light of divine mercy, which proves to be a force that heals for our weakness.

While Pope John Paul II was dying, St. Peter’s Square was filled with people, especially many young people, who wanted to meet their Pope one last time. I cannot forget the moment when Archbishop Sandri announced the message of the Pope’s departure. Above all, the moment when the great bell of St. Peter’s took up this message remains unforgettable. On the day of his funeral, there were many posters with the words “Santo subito!” It was a cry that rose from the encounter with John Paul II from all sides. Not from the square but also in different intellectual circles the idea of giving John Paul II the title “the Great” was discussed.

The word “saint” indicates God’s sphere and the word “great” the human dimension. According to the Church’s standards, sanctity can be recognized by two criteria: heroic virtues and a miracle. These two standards are closely related. Since the word “heroic virtue” does not mean a kind of Olympic achievement but rather that something becomes visible in and through a person that is not his own but God’s work which becomes recognizable in and through him. This is not a kind of moral competition, but the result of renouncing one’s own greatness. The point is that a person lets God work on him, and so God’s work and power become visible through him.

The same applies to the criterion of the miracle: here too, what counts is not that something sensational happening but the visible revelation of God’s healing goodness, which transcends all merely human possibilities. A saint is the man who is open to God and permeated by God. A holy man is the one who leads away from himself and lets us see and recognize God. Checking this juridically, as far as possible, is the purpose of the two processes for beatification and canonization. In the case of John Paul II, both were carried out strictly according to the applicable rules. So, now he stands before us as the Father, who makes God’s mercy and kindness visible to us.

It is more difficult to correctly define the term “great.” In the course of the almost 2,000-year long history of the papacy, the title “the Great” has been maintained only for two popes: Leo I (440 - 461) and Gregory I (590 - 604). In the case of both, the word “great” has a political connotation, but precisely because something of the mystery of God himself becomes visible through their political success. Through dialog, Leo the Great was able to convince Attila, the Prince of Huns, to spare Rome – the city of the Apostolic Princes Peter and Paul. Without weapons, without military or political power, through the power of his conviction for his faith, he was able to convince the feared tyrant to spare Rome. In the struggle between the spirit and power, the spirit proved stronger.

Gregory I’s success was not as spectacular, but he was repeatedly able to protect Rome against the Lombard — here too, by opposing the spirit against power and winning the victory of the spirit.

If we compare both stories with that of John Paul II, the similarity is unmistakable. John Paul II also had no military or political power. During the discussion about the future shape of Europe and Germany in February 1945, it was said that the Pope’s reaction should also be taken into account. Stalin then asked: “How many divisions does the Pope have?” Well, he had no available division. However, the power of faith turned out to be a force that finally unhinged the Soviet power system in 1989 and made a new beginning possible. Undisputedly, the Pope’s faith was an essential element in the collapse of the powers. And so, the greatness that appeared in Leo I and Gregory I is certainly also visible here.

Let us leave open the question of whether the epithet “the great” will prevail or not. It is true that God’s power and goodness have become visible to all of us in John Paul II. In a time when the Church is again suffering from the oppression of evil, he is for us a sign of hope and confidence.




Obamagate_"O Jogo Sujo de Obama" - New York Post


O jornal New York Post fez um editorial que mostra com clareza o Obamagate em poucas palavras: Obama comandando agentes de segurança, mesmo sem provas, para prejudicar Trump. O editorial detonou Obama, sua administração e a própria mídia, por criarem uma ficção chamada "Russiangate", que deu até prêmio Pulitzer de jornalismo, mostrando a total deterioração gigantesca do jornalismo moderno.

Vejam abaixo o editorial do jornal.

It looks like President Obama ordered up phony RussiaGate scandal


editorial board

RussiaGate is now a complete dead letter — but ObamaGate is taking its place. Just how far did the then-president go to cripple his successor?

It’s now clear the Obama-Comey FBI and Justice Department never had anything more substantial than the laughable fiction of the Steele dossier to justify the “counterintelligence” investigation of the Trump campaign. Yet incessant leaks from that supposedly confidential probe wound up consuming the Trump administration’s first months in office — followed by the Bob Mueller-led special counsel investigation that proved nearly the “total witch hunt” that President Trump dubbed it.

Information released as the Justice Department dropped its charges against Gen. Mike Flynn shows that President Barack Obama, in his final days in office, played a key role in fanning the flames of phony scandal. Fully briefed on the “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation, he knew the FBI had come up with nothing despite months of work starting in July 2016.

Yet on Jan. 5, 2017, Obama told top officials who’d be staying on in the new administration to keep the crucial facts from Team Trump.

It happened at an Oval Office meeting with Vice President Joe Biden, intel chiefs John Brennan and Jim Clapper and national security adviser Susan Rice, as well as FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.

“From a national-security perspective,” Rice’s memo afterward put it, “President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.”

This even as then-President Obama also directed that as many people as possible across his administration be briefed on the (utterly unsubstantiated) allegations against Team Trump — and as Rice and others took unprecedented steps to “unmask” US citizens like Flynn whose conversations had been caught on federal wiretaps of foreigners.

Indeed, the Obama administration went on a full-scale leak offensive — handing the Washington Post, New York Times and others a nonstop torrent of “anonymous” allegations of Trumpite ties to Moscow. It suggested that the investigations were finding a ton of treasonous dirt on Team Trump — when in fact the investigators had come up dry.

Sadly, Comey’s FBI played along — sandbagging Flynn with the “friendly” interview that later became the pretext for the bogus charges dropped last week, as well as triggering the White House chaos that led to his ouster. This when the FBI had already gone over the general with a fine-tooth comb, and concluded that, no, he’d done nothing like collude with the Russians.

Meanwhile, Comey himself gave Trump an intentionally misleading briefing on the Steele dossier. That was followed by leaks that suggested the dossier was the tip of an iceberg, rather than a pack of innuendo that hadn’t at all checked out under FBI scrutiny.

Pulitzer Prizes were won for blaring utter fiction; the Trump administration was kneecapped out of the gate. Innocents like Flynn were bankrupted along the way.

Say this about Obama: He knows how to play dirty.