Ab Vigano – Another Letter to American Catholics
Archbishop Vigano Issues Another Letter to American Catholics Donate to Support God’s Five Stones Powered By EmbedPress
The Communist Who Convinced Jimmy Carter to Give Away the Panama Canal
The Communist Who Convinced Jimmy Carter to Give Away the Panama Canal Article Published on American Thinker and Dr. Corsi’s Substack by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. The late Jimmy Carter didn’t come up spontaneously with the idea of giving away the Panama Canal, which America spent blood and gold on and which is an essential part of its national security. Instead, he had Robert A. Pastor, a communist, whispering in his ear. A globalist who desired to merge incrementally the U.S., Mexico, and Canada into a “North American Union” (NAU) along the model of the European Union, Pastor’s intellectual development was rooted in Marxism. Pastor played an instrumental role in the Carter administration’s decision to relinquish control of the Panama Canal. In what appears to have been his first job after being a teaching assistant graduate student while getting his Ph.D. at Harvard University’s Department of Government, Robert A. Pastor signed on to be the Executive Director of the Linowitz Commission. The Linowitz Commission was formally named the “Rockefeller Foundation’s Commission on U.S.- Latin American Relations,” but took its unofficial name from its chairman, Sol Linowitz. Linowitz had previously served as director of the socialist National Planning Association and was a paid, registered foreign agent of the Communist regime of Salvadore Allende in Chile. One of the Linowitz Commission’s primary recommendations was that the United States should give the Panama Canal to Panama. In a 1995 interview he gave for a publication in a law journal,1/ Linowitz explained that it was wrong for the U.S. to have sovereignty over the Panama Canal. Discussing the 1903 treaty that gave the U.S. sovereignty over the Panama Canal, Linowitz commented, “That treaty was a source of shame to the Panamanians because it conveyed sovereignty over a large stretch of their territory to an occupying party.” After completing this assignment as Executive Director of the Linowitz Commission, Pastor signed on with the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). Interestingly, the curriculum vitae that Pastor prepared for American University, where he taught before his death in 2014, mentioned his involvement with the Linowitz Commission but neglected to mention his association with IPS. According to political scientist S. Steven Powell’s definitive study of the IPS,2/ the group was founded in 1963 with funding coming from the Rubin Foundation. Russian émigré Samuel Rubin was a registered member of the Communist Party who made his fortune in the cosmetic business of Faberge, Inc., which he founded in 1936 and sold for approximately $25 million in 1963. Cora Rubin Weiss, Samuel’s daughter, continued funding IPS through the Rubin Foundation, while her husband, Peter Weiss, served as IPS chairman of the board of trustees.3/ Author David Horowitz’s DiscoverTheNetworks.org identified the IPS as “America’s oldest leftwing think tank,” which “has long supported Communist and Anti-American causes around the world,” with a place for KGB agents from the Soviet embassy in Washington “to convene and strategize.” By its own admission, the Institute for Policy Studies is “an avowedly radical organization,4/ created to influence public policy in a leftist direction. At IPS, Pastor participated in the Ad Hoc Working Group on Latin America, which produced a 1977 report entitled “The Southern Connection: Recommendations for a New Approach to Inter-American Relations.”5/ This paper found that the official presumption of U.S. superiority in Latin America was “morally reprehensible.” The IPS paper argued that human rights problems in Latin America were a direct result of our “virulent anticommunism” and “national development based on free play of market forces.” The IPS solution argued for the U.S. to abandon our anti-communist allies in Latin America in favor of supporting “ideological pluralism,” a code word designed to normalize the revolutionary socialist forces then fighting for power in Latin America. The IPS political agenda promoted an anti-American “Third Worldism” and the “self-flagellation” characteristic of Carter’s foreign policy—an agenda with far-reaching consequences that were revealed when the Sandinistas fashioned their revolutionary society” in Nicaragua, “along the lines of Castro’s Cuba.”6/ Pastor left the Linowitz Commission to become the director of the Office of Latin American and Caribbean Affairs in the National Security Council in the Carter White House. There, Pastor served as President Carter’s “point man”,7/ advocating for the 1977 Carter-Torrijos Treaty (with Omar Torrijos, the dictatorial Panamanian head of state) that transferred the Panama Canal to Panama. Pastor also played a role in convincing the Senate to vote for the Carter-Torrijos Treaty on April 18, 1978, despite staunch objections from conservative politicians, including Ronald Reagan, who objected on national security grounds.8/ At the request of President Jimmy Carter, Linowitz had helped negotiate the Carter-Torrijos Treaty, touring and speaking throughout the U.S. to conservative groups opposing the Panama Canal giveaway. In December 1993, when President Clinton nominated Pastor to be the U.S. ambassador to Panama, Pastor’s role in the Panama Canal giveaway came back to haunt him. Pastor’s nomination had been approved by a 16-3 vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and his confirmation looked virtually certain. The nomination failed, however, and the administration withdrew it in February 1995 after Senator Jesse Helms swore to prevent a Senate vote on Pastor’s nomination. Helms, who had vehemently opposed the turn-over of the Panama Canal, placed much of the blame squarely on Pastor, declaring when he opposed Pastor’s nomination that Pastor “presided over one of the most disastrous and humiliating periods in the history of US involvement in Latin America.”9/ Jeane Kirkpatrick, UN ambassador under Ronald Reagan, commented presciently on the connections between the Linowitz Commission, the IPS, revolutionary socialism, and utopian globalism: The ease with which the Linowitz recommendations were incorporated into the IPS analysis and report demonstrated how strong had become the affinity between the views of the foreign policy establishment and the New Left, how readily the categories of the new liberalism could be translated into those of revolutionary socialism, and how short a step it was from utopian globalism and the expectation of change to anti-American perspectives and revolutionary activism.10/ During Carter’s presidency, Pastor played a major intellectual role in shaping the administration’s dominant ideology that U.S. capitalism was the culprit, not the solution—leading to
Why Didn’t the Democrats Steal the 2024 Presidential Election?
Why Didn’t the Democrats Steal the 2024 Presidential Election? Article Published on American Thinker and Dr. Corsi’s Substack by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. Many Trump supporters believe that Trump won the 2024 election because, this time, the vote for Trump was “too big to rig.” Others dismiss the concern about “stolen elections” because Trump won the popular vote in addition to the electoral vote, plus a GOP majority in the U.S. House and Senate. The reality is that elections are still corruptible. While Democrats didn’t rig the presidential race this time around, the narrow congressional majority probably means that down-ballot races were still manipulated…something Democrats can and will do again. But we would make a mistake to think that there are vote margins so large that cheating is impossible. Biden’s popular vote total was even larger in 2020 than Trump’s in 2024 (81,283,501 vs. Trump’s 74,223,975 in 2020 and 77,303,573 in 2024). Biden’s 2020 popular vote was “too big because it was rigged.” What we learned after 2020 was that cryptographic algorithms embedded in State Board of Elections voter registration databases existed in databases, as Andrew Paquette and I demonstrated on our 501(c)3 website, GodsFiveStones.com. The algorithms permit bad actors to create false voter records that are still given legitimate state voter ID numbers. The scheme appears designed to allow the criminals operating the cryptographic scheme, at will, to vote illegally the number of certifiable (though false) mail-in ballots needed to win. In 2020, the telltale pattern of election fraud was evident, as all the battleground states halted counting votes on election night. When vote counting resumed, enough mail-in ballots in each battleground state miraculously appeared, putting Biden on top for good. However, in 2024, after Andrew Paquette exposed cryptographic algorithms in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia, each of the battleground states completed vote counting on election night, with all of them reporting Trump as the winner. In part, Trump’s victory may have been because we did expose the cryptographic algorithms in four of the 2024 battleground states before the presidential election on November 5, 2024. However, the primary reason the Democrats allowed the swing states to conclude counting votes on election night was that the Democrats decided not to steal the 2024 presidential election to punish Biden and Kamala Harris for breaking ranks. At the “Deep Party” Central Committee level of the Democrat party—at the level of Barack Obama, Klaus Schwab, and George Soros—the order went out that Harris needed to lose. After Biden’s catastrophic debate performance, Sen. Ted Cruz believed that Obama wanted to substitute Michelle Obama as the Democrat’s candidate once Biden was induced (or forced) to resign from the bid. This theory gains support from the political melodrama in the Democrat party after the debate. Biden eventually dropped out of the race at 1:45 p.m. on July 21 via a social media post. Not quite 30 minutes later, he posted on “X” that, after deciding “not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term,” he offered his “full support and endorsement for Kamala (Harris) to be the nominee of our party this year.” Almost immediately after Biden’s announcements, Obama issued a letter that, while commending Biden for his decision to withdraw, did not endorse Harris. As early as July 10, 2024, mainstream media had printed stories that if Biden were to drop out of the race, delegates to the Democratic National Convention would be released to vote for an alternative. After Biden’s “X” post endorsing Kamala Harris, she became the presumed Democrat party presidential candidate. All consideration of an alternative presidential candidate, including Michelle Obama, stopped. Despite increasing evidence of Biden’s diminishing mental capacity, he’d outmaneuvered Obama. If we assume the Democrat party has increasingly been acting as a neo-Marxist party, the capital sin of a party member would be to countermand a Central Committee decision. Biden’s maneuver to position Kamala Harris ahead of Michelle Obama as the party’s presidential candidate in 2024 was an unpardonable offense. Should this reasoning be correct, Kamala Harris would be well advised to watch her back between now and 2028. Don’t be surprised if charges that Harris violated campaign finance laws end up indicting her with felony charges that could send her to prison. Looked at from the perspective of the “Deep Party” Central Committee that runs the Democrats, Harris needed to lose. Statements made during the campaign suggest that both Obama, now joined by Biden, who hated her for shivving him, sought to undermine Harris. On the campaign trail for Harris on October 10, 2024, Obama antagonized black male voters. “You (black males) are coming up with all kinds of reasons and excuses, and I’ve got a problem with that,” Obama said. “Because part of it makes me think—and I’m speaking to men directly—part of it makes me think that, well, you just aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president, and you’re coming up with other alternatives and other reasons for that.” Then, on October 30, 2024, in response to Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally in New York City, Biden suggested Trump supporters were “garbage,” a comment sure to goad Trump supporters into even more determined resolve to vote against Kamala. If Kamala Harris won the presidency in 2024, she would have had an excellent chance of being re-elected in 2028. Now, though, she has a limited future at best. In other words, Trump won not only because the American people voted for him but because the Democrat “Deep State” Party needed to bring its people in line. That is, they let Trump win by refusing to hand Kamala a victory. However, even as the Democrats stepped back from the top of the ticket, as the razor-thin margin in the House reminds us, the president isn’t the only person on a ballot. The ongoing investigation of many down-ballot elections suggests that the algorithms were also used in those down-ballot races. There’s growing evidence strongly suggesting that the Democrats stole many U.S. House and Senate elections and an
Obama Floats Pardon Trial Balloon Amid Deep State Frenzy to Get on the List
Obama Floats Pardon “Trial Balloon” Amid Deep State Frenzy to Get on the List Article Published on American Thinker and Dr. Corsi’s Substack by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. When does Barack Obama ask Susan Rice to petition Joe Biden for a presidential pardon for himself? With the pardon frenzy buzzing around the Biden camp, a trial balloon for an Obama pardon has already begun drifting toward the Oval Office. Biden will be well advised to limit his pardons to members of his own family. In his NBC News Meet the Press interview on Sunday, December 8, Trump explained that he had no intention of appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Joe Biden, despite Biden’s enthusiasm to raid Mar-a-Lago under the authority of Jack Smith, the special prosecutor the Biden administration appointed in an attempt to convict and incarcerate Trump in federal criminal prison. Given the resistance coup d’état that the Deep State has waged against Donald J. Trump since before the first inauguration on January 20, 2017, the fear and loathing among Biden administration top-level operatives to beg for pardons attests to their awareness that the second Trump administration will witness justice administered by a righteous Trump Vindictus [i.e., translated from Latin: Trump’s Revenge]. Those petitioning now for pardons are doing so because they know the crimes they have committed, and they are afraid that with the massive declassification of information that the incoming Trump administration is planning to make public, their guilt will no longer remain hidden. What Obama fears is that Biden might be persuaded to issue a sweeping set of Deep State pardons to a list that would include various top-level Obama administration officials like former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former Attorney General James Comey who potentially could be forced to provide damaging criminal testimony against him. A presidential pardon does not waive a person’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination for future crimes. But a person accepting a pardon (including Brennan, Clapper, Comey, and Hunter Biden, or anyone else so pardoned) can be forced to testify truthfully about the pardoned crimes since they are no longer at risk of prosecution under federal law. Once pardoned, the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply to giving testimony against others for the pardoned crimes since the pardoned individual no longer needs Fifth Amendment protection from a self-incrimination risk that is no longer relevant. In other words, just to be clear, please understand that by accepting a pardon, a person has admitted guilt to the pardoned crime. This fact, without any other evidence, gives the DOJ and the FBI a probative cause to start a new investigation by interviewing and interrogating the pardoned person under oath. All a DOJ or FBI official would have to do is to put a piece of paper in front of the pardoned person and ask that person to enumerate all crimes committed, plus requiring the pardoned person to give the names and details of all criminal accomplices involved. President Gerald Ford set the precedent for a pre-emptive pardon (i.e., a pardon before any offense has been charged) with his Proclamation 4311, issued on September 8, 1974, granting a pardon to his predecessor, Richard Nixon, who resigned in disgrace, ending the Watergate affair, on August 9, 1974. Ford justified the pre-emptive pardon because Nixon’s trial “could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed.” Ford reasoned that in that time, “the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States.” But the idea of granting a long list of Deep State political actors a blanket pardon for all crimes they may have committed, plotted to commit, or contemplated to commit, stretching back to 2009, the year Obama first took office, would stretch the precedent of the Nixon pardon back 15 years, to politically unacceptable levels encompassing all the years of Democratic presidential rule since President George W. Bush. The tranquility Ford sought to preserve by the Nixon pardon is not compatible with the angry, vituperative response a blanket pardon of Obama/Biden operatives may have committed, especially if Hillary and Bill Clinton blanket pardons were to be thrown into the mix. Besides, under the Supreme Court ruling in Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), accepting a presidential pardon is an admission of guilt. A lawfare note drafted four years ago argued that “(p)roactively pardoning large swaths of current and former government officials, family members and other people connected to the Trump administration would be a double-edged sword. Wouldn’t the same logic apply to the Obama and Biden administrations and to the term Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state and Democratic Party presidential candidate? Are former Presidents Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all willing to admit their terms in office were criminal affairs? Lawfare discussions argued vociferously in 2020 that President Trump did not have the power to issue a self-pardon. Nor is there any prohibition in the Constitution from impeaching President Biden even though his status is now a lame duck. A series of blanket pardons designed to protect a broad Deep State conspiracy to make sure Trump never returned to the White House could implicate Biden in what could be construed as a continuing, perhaps treasonous coup d’état that sought to vitiate the will of the people as expressed in the just past November 5 presidential election. One constitutional limitation of the presidential pardon authority is that it cannot be used in impeachment cases. So, in the final analysis, the House of Representatives could impeach Biden for “high crimes and misdemeanors” for abusing the pardon authority, forcing him to stand trial in the Senate (possibly even after the second Trump inauguration on January 20, 2025). The truth is that the Deep State went too far in the
Archbishop Vigano Letter: SOME CONSIDERATIONS after the election victory by Donald J. Trump
Archbishop Vigano Letter: SOME CONSIDERATIONS after the election victory by Donald J. Trump Article Published on Substack by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. A few days ago, on the eve of the U.S. Presidential Election, the arrogance of political commentators in the United States and all vassal nations had reached unexplored heights. Singers, actors, philanthropists, public figures, and journalists who supported Kamala Harris went so far as to threaten to leave the United States if Donald J. Trump was elected, and in truth many today expect them to fulfill their promises. Even Jorge Mario Bergoglio made a gesture, with his trademark politeness, traveling in a wheelchair to the penthouse of radical Sorosian activist and abortionist Emma Bonino with white roses and chocolates, as if to issue a final, desperate plea to American Catholics not to be too skeevy and to vote for Harris, who shares with Bergoglio the woke religion. The mainstream media, owned by the usual big investment funds, shamelessly endorsed Kamala and ridiculed, indeed criminalized Donald Trump. And the more rude, the more transgressive, the more obscene, the more profane Harris supporters were, the more space they were given on television and social media. Trucks with millions of already-voted ballots were ready to reach Pennsylvania and those states where the votes of deceased, relocated Democrats and illegal immigrants were not enough to skew the election result. Insidious algorithms embedded in the State Election enough to skew the election result. Insidious algorithms embedded in the State Election Commission’s voter registration databases were uncovered by Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. These algorithms allowed false voter registrations to be printed and concealed, which could be used in various election fraud schemes, including counting absentee ballots cast by nonexistent voters. By exposing the scheme, Dr. Corsi prevented the creation of millions of fraudulent votes for Kamala Harris. In multiple states in the Union, computer reports revealed that electronic voting registration machines allowed votes to be changed remotely, and in one case access passwords were even leaked online. On the morning of November 5, in short, it seemed that everything was settled. Everyone thought so: some with the arrogance of those who believe themselves to be superior merely because they are progressive, woke, green, resilient, inclusive, sustainable, gender ideologized; others with that fund of trepidation of those who find themselves like the young David fighting the giant Goliath. Yet in a matter of hours, that whole immense house of cards, that whole mighty electoral machine sagged like a circus tent. The Globalist Metaverse The most remarkable element of this presidential campaign, in my opinion, consists in the manifestation of the pride and conceit of the self-proclaimed “good guys”; a pride that has made them deaf and blind to the true, real demands of the people; a conceit that places them above the miserable daily affairs of the vulgar and places them in a virtual world, in a surreal metaverse in which normal people are not allowed. It is the metaverse of the globalist world, with its agenda, its religion, its high priests, its prophets, its rituals, its dogmas, its holy books, and its idols. The only thing Kamala had to do was make this dystopia irreversible by making it the official religion of the United States of America and its ideological colonies. Bergoglio, the Jesuits (with their U.S. leaders, Thomas Reese and James Martin), the U.S. Cardinals in the line of McCarrick, and the entire Bergoglian episcopate were waiting for nothing else, replicating in the ecclesial sphere that irremediable rupture between Hierarchy and faithful that in the civil sphere has been consummated between the ruling class and citizens. On the other hand, even the exponents of the “synodal church” are under blackmail no more or less than the clients of Jeffrey Epstein and Sean Combs. It is not surprising that the outcome of the elections has outraged the exponents of the deep church, which for decades, with the support of the deep state, infiltrated the Catholic Church and worked for her demolition. The Jesuits together with “their pope,” accomplices of the globalist subversive plan, ought to soon suffer the same cancellation that in recent years they have inflicted – also making use of the political support they enjoy – on those who have denounced their betrayal. “Yes, we can,” Obama said years ago. And we’ve seen it: the deep state has indeed been able to do everything it promised, from protecting the pedo-satanist elite to covering up the most scandalous cases of corruption; from imposing the insane green policies and climate fraud to administering a poison designed to exterminate the population; from genetic engineering to the systematic destruction of agriculture and animal husbandry; from the energy crisis provoked to destroy the economic fabric of the nation to the war in Ukraine and the Middle East. All of this has been done by transferring billions from the pockets of citizens to the offshore accounts of multinational corporations, pharmaceutical companies, arms manufacturers, and “humanitarian” organizations that are always headed by the well-known families of the world’s usurious high finance. The Disconnection from the Real World Those who marvel at the resounding failure of the globalist metaverse show by their surprise that they are totally disconnected from the real world, where men and women literally fight to get to work, and not just to get a job, because our streets are dumps of derelicts and criminals; where parents have to protect their children from the perversions and obscenities of their teachers, or where a woke judge can take your child away from you because you don’t call him or her by the pronouns he or she has “chosen”. In the real world we worry about the cost of living, rising energy prices, the ever-lower quality of large-scale retail products, and the difficulty of finding healthy food. In the real world, the farmer has to think about how to survive after paying taxes and being crushed by unfair competition from multinational corporations, and the rancher feels helpless when