There is, first of all, the manner of their election. As to Biden, even among the lying media one senses an almost palpable implicit recognition that the election was stolen from Trump despite the 75,000,000 votes he won. The result stinks so badly as to dampen any exultant coverage of Biden’s “unprecedented landslide win” with a preposterous 81,000,000 votes for a bumbling old fool, steeped in corrupt foreign dealings, who conducted no campaign and cannot even read from a teleprompter without exhibiting aphasia. That number of votes is so high and so inexplicable demographically (Biden lost and Trump gained support among black and Hispanic voters) as to be in itself an indicium of fraud in the form of countless millions of invalid or illegal mail-in and harvested ballots. Better not to dwell on the magnitude of Biden’s “victory” as it is pregnant with obvious and studiously unanswered questions. Among the questions are those raised by the following undisputed facts:
- Obama won 69,000,000 votes, Trump won 74,000,000, but somehow Biden “won” 81,000,000 vote—outperforming Obama by 12,000,000 votes with less minority support than Obama had.
- Biden is said to have won 81,000,000 votes despite Trump’s gains among black and Hispanic voters, according to exit polls that, if anything, substantially underestimate the gain just as dishonestly as the pre-election polls predicted the outcome in the swing states.
- Obama won 873 counties, Trump 2,497, Biden only 477.
- Obama won 18 of 19 bellwether counties, Trump also 18 of 19, Biden only one.
- Florida, Ohio and Iowa, the key bellwether states, were all won by both Obama and Trump, and were all lost by Biden.
- Obama and Trump had coattails that led to gains in the House of Representatives, while Biden not only had no coattails, but the Democrats lost thirteen House seats.
A highly amusing “fact check” in USA TODAY admitted the truth of these damning statistics, but asserted confidently that “they are not proof of voter fraud.” Why? Because “a national coalition of election security officials described the general election as ‘the most secure in American history.’” Translation: a bevy of Democrats have pronounced the election super-duper secure. Well, of course they know the opposite is true because it was Democrats who labored to undo all traditional security measures in key states by judicial fiat or illegal policy changes and “guidance” documents issued by unelected officials. The claim that the 2020 Presidential election was the most secure in history is about as believable as the claim that the 2020 WWE World Championship was the most honest wrestling match in wrestling history.
The Navarro Report, Vol. II, by Peter Navarro, the Harvard-educated economist and former head of Trump’s National Trade Council, suffices to demonstrate that the 2020 Presidential election was the least secure in American history: an unstoppable tsunami of absolutely unprecedented vote dilution by tens of millions of unverified or inadequately verified mail-in, absentee, drop-box, late-arriving, non-postmarked, unwitnessed and harvested ballots, all substituted for traditional in-person voting on the patently absurd pretext that polling places, but not shopping malls, are viral death zones. USA’s “fact check” is just another lie by the same “fact-checking industry” invented by the Left precisely to hide the facts—an industry that underwent a huge boom after Trump’s election, there being so many facts to hide.
And yet Joe Biden is President, according to the Electoral College tally. And there is nothing we can do about it until the next Presidential election, assuming he lives that long. (On that proposition, the betting is already open, with the odds of Biden’s survival for the entire first term already only 75%.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Dear Friends, social media is cracking down on Conservative content. Many of you have complained that you stopped seeing our content in your news feeds. We hear you, and we have a way of staying connected in the fight — subscribe to my FREE weekly eblast. Click here. - MJM
Turning to Bergoglio’s election, he too arrived in office under a cloud of suspicion about illegal maneuvering, both before and during the conclave, to obtain the necessary votes from the College of Cardinals. We are all familiar with the substantial evidence that “Team Bergoglio” (including members of the “Saint Gallen Mafia”) lobbied for his election before the conclave and worked to secure the necessary voting bloc with his prior consent in a veritable “campaign for his election,” as even The Washington Post has reported apropos Austein Ivereigh’s famous exposé, “The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope.” Ivereigh hastily backed away from his claim regarding Bergoglio’s prior consent to be elected. But we have copies! It is right there in my copy of his book, where he recounts that after the failed attempt to have Bergoglio elected at the 2005 conclave, the plotters “had learned their lesson” and in 2013 better prepared the way:
"Spotting their moment, the initiative was now seized by the European reformists who in 2005 had pushed for Bergoglio. Some of them, like Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, were too old to vote in the conclave; others—including Walter Kasper (who was just under eighty when the papal see fell vacant), Godfried Danneels, and Karl Lehmann—were electors. They had learned their lessons from 2005. They first secured Bergoglio’s assent. Asked if he was willing, he said that he believed that at this time of crisis for the Church no cardinal could refuse if asked. (Murphy-O’Connor knowingly warned him to “be careful,” that it was his turn now, and was told: capisco, “I understand.”) Then they got to work, touring the cardinals’ dinners to promote their man, arguing that his age—seventy-six—should no longer be considered an obstacle, given that popes could resign. Having understood, from 2005, the dynamics of a conclave, they knew that votes traveled to those who made a strong showing out of the gate. Their objective was to secure at least twenty-five votes for Bergoglio on the first ballot." The Great Reformer (pp. 354-355).
Bergoglio’s alleged prior consent to “run” for the papacy aside, Ivereigh’s description of the illicit campaign for his election has never been retracted by Ivereigh or negated by any of the cardinals he names, including Murphy-O’Connor of Westminster, Danneels of Belgium, Kasper and Lehmann of Germany, Schonborn of Vienna, Vingt-Trois of Paris and Santos Abril y Castello of St. Mary Major.
Under John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, this sort of behavior surrounding a conclave is supposed to be punishable by “the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.” (UDG, ¶ 58) But what of it? How do we know which of the plotters actually incurred the penalty without knowing who exactly did what exactly? And even if some of the plotters did incur excommunication, Bergoglio is still the Pope and, as is the case with Biden, there is nothing we can do about it. Worse, there is nothing we can do about it for as long as Bergoglio lives, which could easily be another ten years or more, it being impossible that the man will ever relinquish his power by resigning as he has teasingly suggested—the better to display his humility—with no sign of any real intention of doing so.
Then too, Church history is littered with examples of connivance, political maneuvering and even corrupt agreements in ascensions to the papacy by men who nonetheless belong to the canon of valid Popes. Before 1059, when Pope Nicholas II established what would become known as the College of Cardinals as the Church’s “electoral college,” the leading families of Rome, the people of Rome, the clergy and laity of Rome together, the Holy Roman Emperor or the reigning Pope himself variously served to choose the next Pope. Addressing the childishly pious superstition that it is the Holy Ghost who selects the Pope and that the cardinals are merely His instruments, Cardinal Ratzinger, indulging in the spécialité of traditionalists, observed the obvious: “There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!” On that occasion, Ratzinger also remarked that “Probably the only assurance he [sic] offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.” What Ratzinger meant by “the thing” is unclear. But “probably” is a telling qualification, for Bergoglio has come closer than any of the bad Popes in Church history to totally ruining the papacy.
Bergoglio’s pontificate, if one can even call it that, is practically devoid of any firm affirmation of Catholic orthodoxy, while being rife with assaults upon it, many of them exhaustively compiled here by a group of diocesan priests who must remain anonymous:
- abuse of Scripture to fit Modernist or leftist narratives;
- false and even blasphemous exegesis;
- incessant demagogic outbursts against tradition-minded Catholics;
- radical undermining of Church teaching on marriage and procreation (reducing intrinsic evils to relative evils and the natural law to a mere ideal);
- condonation of homosexuality and transgenderism as the way “God made you”;
- the condonation of contraception as the lesser evil to avoid disease;
- radical religious indifferentism;
- universal salvation and the denial of eternal punishment in Hell (except for the Mafia, the evil rich and “rigid” Catholics);
- the demolition of traditional formation and religious life, especially the Latin liturgy and asceticism;
- a shocking “Mariology” that undermines the dogma of her sinlessness and moral perfection;
- reduction of the social teaching of the Church to leftist cant condemning the rich and exalting the poor;
- pushing for women deacons with a new commission after his first commission failed to tell him what he wanted to hear;
- condemning the death penalty as immoral, contrary to two millennia of Church teaching based on divine revelation.
In sum, Bergoglio is a veritable Vesuvius of error emanating from a mountain of heterodox words and deeds, many emitted on airplanes, ranging from the plainly heretical to the merely impious.
Which brings us to the next parallel between Biden and Bergoglio. With Biden we have the first Woke President, whereas with Bergoglio we have the first Woke Pope, who rose to the top of the Church’s hierarchy seven years before Biden rose to the top of the American oligarchy whose smooth functioning Trump so rudely interrupted. Bergoglio was Woke even before Woke was a thing. The following handy chart demonstrates the point:
Biden and Bergoglio: Comparative Wokeness
· suggests Trump like Hitler
· supports George Floyd protests
· pro-“gay marriage”
· “climate change” ideologue
· declares imminent destruction of world due to “climate change”
· pro-Paris Accord
· demands reduction of “carbon emissions” while jetting around the globe
· pro-“carbon tax”
· pro-open borders
· opposes border walls
· anti-“nationalist,” anti-populist
· pro-New World Order
· pro-United Nations-world government
· pro-Red China
· subsidized by Red China (family business)
· pro-COVID-19 lockdown police states
· pro-“mask mandate”/mask shaming
· pro-obligatory COVID-19 “vaccine”
· condemns “virus deniers”
· pro-“Great Reset”
· pro-wealth “redistribution”
· pro-“universal basic income”
· denounces the rich while being rich
· denounces the rich while allying with billionaire oligarchs
· pro-abortion on demand during the entire nine months of pregnancy
· equates “fundamentalist” Christians with terrorists
· friend of socialist and communist dictators
· fan of Bergoglio
· pro-Red China (“a point of greatness”)
· subsidized by Red China (donations)
· pro-“universal basic income”
· pro-feminism (a “working of the Spirit”)
No doubt the indefatigable defenders of the indefensible in the neo-Catholic commentariat will be able to dredge up an isolated statement here or there in which Bergoglio appears to contradict certain of the leftist positions he espouses. But here we see yet another parallel with Biden: the bobbing and weaving of the leftist politician, adjusting his rhetoric to the needs of the moment, telling people what they want to hear, only to move relentlessly in the same leftward direction. With good reason has Bergoglio the Politician been dubbed “leader of the global Left.”
Yet another parallel between Biden and Bergoglio is found in their attack on structural traditions: Biden, wantonly legislating by executive order, presides over a complete abandonment of constitutional rules governing the vaunted separation of powers in the federal government as well as the constitutional grounds and procedures for Presidential impeachments; and he was elected to office on the basis of numerous violations of the constitutional requirement that state legislatures, not Democrat officials, determine voting procedures in federal elections. Bergoglio presides over the deconstruction of whatever is left of the Roman Curia, including the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (formerly the Holy Office), in favor of party boss-style governance by him and his cronies and sham synods in a “synodal church” that is nothing but a vehicle for the execution of his will.
In sum, what Biden’s election as President is to the United States, Bergoglio’s election to the papacy is to the Church: a disaster of apocalyptic dimensions, producing situations never before seen in Western history, not even during the civilizational apostasy of the past century that made both Biden and Bergoglio possible.
Biden is President, but he is not my President because it is morally impossible to follow his commands or view his abuse of authority as legitimate. Bergoglio is Pope, but he is not my Pope in the sense that he does not want to be Pope—defender of faith, morals and Sacred Tradition against the attacks of a hostile world. Rather, Bergoglio acts as a leader of the Church’s merger with that same hostile world, underway since the Second Vatican Council, which he defends with all the vigor of Pius X precisely because it did not defend faith, morals and Sacred Tradition against the world’s attacks. Rather, as Paul VI so fatuously put it: “Instead of depressing diagnoses, encouraging remedies; instead of direful prognostics, messages of trust issued from the council to the present-day world. The modern world's values were not only respected but honored, its efforts approved, its aspirations purified and blessed.” And, in response, the “modern world” spat in Paul’s face, leaving him to lament only eight years later that “The opening to the world [at the Council] became a veritable invasion of the Church by worldly thinking.”
In the Church today, Bergoglio is the leader of the deluded masses identified by Dietrich von Hildebrand in the same year as Paul VI’s lament: “The poison of our epoch is slowly seeping into the Church herself, and many have failed to recognize the apocalyptic decline of our time.” Bergoglio holds the office of the papacy, but he refuses to exercise it for its intended purpose. Indeed, he exercises the office in ways that are directly contrary to its purpose and only accelerate the apocalyptic decline. Like Biden, Bergoglio is a ruler, to be sure, but a ruler for his own ends, not the common good of the society over which he presides, and certainly not for the salvation of souls in the one Ark of Salvation—a phrase that would arouse his snarling contempt for “rigid” Catholics. Just as Biden cannot be our President, therefore, Bergoglio cannot be our Pope. But that is exactly the way he wants it. Our only choice is to act accordingly until his baneful reign is over.